Senate DEMS show sign of intelligence.

[vurbano]

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/shocker-democrats-wont-fund-gitmo-closing

Looks like the Messiah wont be adding that to our bill.

[Bob Haller]

Ahh gitmo must be closed, supermax those found guilty and release the rest........

supermax is super secure and those sent there will look back fondly at gitmo, as comparted to supermaxes 23/7 lifetime solitary confinement.

allowed out of cell shackled to a exercise area 1 hour daily.

no tv, no radio, no windows never see outside for rest of life, family 15 minute visits by picture phone only, inmate is shackeled during picture phone visit.

minimal food, no recreation, no one to talk to except guards who are instructed no idle chit chat with prisoners, just order them around.

if supermax isnt secure no where is.

obama can move military money around and send detainees to military supermax prisons.

bush verbs hero did stuff like that., just zero the black prisons budgets and use those funds

[fallout2600]

Obama will have Gitmo filled to capacity within a few months due to his Pak/Afg escalation.

[vurbano]

Ahh gitmo must be closed, supermax those found guilty and release the rest........
That would be stupidity. Leave them right where they are. It is a very good facility rated highly by everyone who has evaluated it equipped with judges and everything it needs. Terrorists do not belong in civilian jails.

[vurbano]

Obama will have Gitmo filled to capacity within a few months due to his Pak/Afg escalation.
Bob wants those in Supermax too. Honestly I think we should send each country a yearly bill for not taking back their terrorists.

[msmith198025]

Bob, why not leave them where they are if they are found guilty? Why not keep gitmo open?

[fallout2600]

Liberals are putting the horse in front of the buggy again. The International House of Torture known as Gitmo will be open until the War on Terror ends. You want to get Gitmo closed, then press Obama on ending the war in Iraq, Afhganistan, and now Pakistan, which has probably bought our troops another 5-10 years of deployment and insurgency work.


Mainstream media coverage of the political left’s apparent abandonment of the peace movement which helped bring it to power has been few and far between, and the Democratic Party seems to have used peace activists for their votes and grassroots influence much as the religious right has been used by the GOP.

As long as Obama has the left convinced that Gitmo is an issue, the longer the war will rage on. Like Nixon promised to end Vietnam and ultimately fooled himself into thinking he could fix it. Years later we were bombing countries surrounding Vietnam under Nixon's command. Same as Obama is making strikes in Pakistan while he preaches peace. Unless the homeland is under attack, its just an open ended war. Our military can't be defeated, so what are we winning?

[vurbano]

It should NEVER be closed and used whenever we need it.

[HD MM]

Liberals are putting the horse in front of the buggy again. The International House of Torture known as Gitmo will be open until the War on Terror ends. You want to get Gitmo closed, then press Obama on ending the war in Iraq, Afhganistan, and now Pakistan, which has probably bought our troops another 5-10 years of deployment and insurgency work.



As long as Obama has the left convinced that Gitmo is an issue, the longer the war will rage on. Like Nixon promised to end Vietnam and ultimately fooled himself into thinking he could fix it. Years later we were bombing countries surrounding Vietnam under Nixon's command. Same as Obama is making strikes in Pakistan while he preaches peace. Unless the homeland is under attack, its just an open ended war. Our military can't be defeated, so what are we winning?

Nothing. We need to get our military the hell out of foreign countries NOW! I've got a brother in law and two friends over there risking their lives on this nonsense war!

[Skyhi]

Nothing. We need to get our military the hell out of foreign countries NOW! I've got a brother in law and two friends over there risking their lives on this nonsense war!

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

I'm very disappointed in the Democrats. They took back congress in 2006 by making promises to end the war in Iraq. Two and a half years later, they've done absolutely nothing to do so.

I do think, however, military attention is warranted in Pakistan as the Taliban are 60 miles away from the Paki's nuclear weapons.

[iceturkee]

Liberals are putting the horse in front of the buggy again. The International House of Torture known as Gitmo will be open until the War on Terror ends. You want to get Gitmo closed, then press Obama on ending the war in Iraq, Afhganistan, and now Pakistan, which has probably bought our troops another 5-10 years of deployment and insurgency work.



As long as Obama has the left convinced that Gitmo is an issue, the longer the war will rage on. Like Nixon promised to end Vietnam and ultimately fooled himself into thinking he could fix it. Years later we were bombing countries surrounding Vietnam under Nixon's command. Same as Obama is making strikes in Pakistan while he preaches peace. Unless the homeland is under attack, its just an open ended war. Our military can't be defeated, so what are we winning?


in time, i believe that we won't win iraq/afhganistan anymore than we won vietnam. so countless people have and will die in vain.

[vurbano]

in time, i believe that we won't win iraq/afhganistan anymore than we won vietnam. so countless people have and will die in vain.
Yes We stopped winning wars with the advent of battlefield TV coverage. The fact of the matter is that no matter the senario, the enemy knows that all they have to do is show some blood on TV and the American public will not have the stomach for it. It automatically starts going south after the bombing campaign phase of the war when the media can get a good look.

[msmith198025]

Yes We stopped winning wars with the advent of battlefield TV coverage. The fact of the matter is that no matter the senario, the enemy knows that all they have to do is show some blood on TV and the American public will not have the stomach for it. It automatically starts going south after the bombing campaign phase of the war when the media can get a good look.

I agree with this. Media coverage, while good in some respects, has really hurt any war effort that ANY country could wage. There is a peace of not knowing that the public used to have. They do not have that anymore, and in SOME cases, that is necessary.

[vurbano]

I agree with this. Media coverage, while good in some respects, has really hurt any war effort that ANY country could wage. There is a peace of not knowing that the public used to have. They do not have that anymore, and in SOME cases, that is necessary.


smart man.

[iceturkee]

Yes We stopped winning wars with the advent of battlefield TV coverage. The fact of the matter is that no matter the senario, the enemy knows that all they have to do is show some blood on TV and the American public will not have the stomach for it. It automatically starts going south after the bombing campaign phase of the war when the media can get a good look.


no, we stopped winning wars when the enemy was smarter than we were.

[froggigger]

no, we stopped winning wars when the enemy was smarter than we were.

Which is the result of politicians running wars.

[fallout2600]

Which is the result of politicians running wars.
:thumbup:

[iceturkee]

Which is the result of politicians running wars.


you won't get an argument from me there. there's a reason why the military has very senior enlisted personnel and senior officers.....why there are think tank schools they go to after they make a certain rank!

[vurbano]

no, we stopped winning wars when the enemy was smarter than we were.ANd started using the media yes.

[vurbano]

Which is the result of politicians running wars.Get the media out of the wars and then the politicians will be unable or uninterested in running them. Politicians respond to the public pressure generated by those bloody pictures on the TV and stories in print. It all starts with the media.

[froggigger]

Get the media out of the wars and then the politicians will be unable or uninterested in running them. Politicians respond to the public pressure generated by those bloody pictures on the TV and stories in print. It all starts with the media.

I'm not disagreeing with you. The politicians use the media as a political tool. Business as usual.

[fallout2600]

Get the media out of the wars and then the politicians will be unable or uninterested in running them. Politicians respond to the public pressure generated by those bloody pictures on the TV and stories in print. It all starts with the media.

The army gets a little of the blame for choosing to allow the media to embed.

[vurbano]

The army gets a little of the blame for choosing to allow the media to embed.Im not clear on that. Is it really their choice? What would happen if we denied the press access to a war? The networks would be screaming. In hindsight, since the Bush administration was going to be depicted as evil anyway they might as well have tried that.

[fallout2600]

Im not clear on that. Is it really their choice? What would happen if we denied the press access to a war? The networks would be screaming. In hindsight, since the Bush administration was going to be depicted as evil anyway they might as well have tried that.

From wikipedia:


At the start of the war in March 2003, as many as 775 reporters and photographers were traveling as embedded journalists. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_journalist#cite_note-0) These reporters signed contracts with the military that limited what they were allowed to report on. [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_journalist#cite_note-1) When asked why the military decided to embed journalists with the troops, Lt. Col. Rick Long of the U.S. Marine Corps replied, "Frankly, our job is to win the war. Part of that is information warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_warfare). So we are going to attempt to dominate the information environment."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_journalist#cite_note-2)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/embed_3-27.html


Before joining their battalions, the embedded journalists had to sign a contract restricting when and what they can report. The details of military actions can only be described in general terms and journalists agreed not to write at all about possible future missions or about classified weapons and information they might find.


At the beginning of the experiment, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld called the embedding of journalists "historic," but cautioned that the close-up view is not always complete.

"What we are seeing is not the war in Iraq; what we're seeing are slices of the war in Iraq," he said.

"We're seeing that particularized perspective that that reporter or that commentator or that television camera happens to be able to see at that moment, and it is not what's taking place. What you see is taking place, to be sure, but it is one slice, and it is the totality of that that is what this war is about."

[msmith198025]

The army gets a little of the blame for choosing to allow the media to embed.

True.

My original opinion still stands however. There is too much info for the general public, that they really do not need.

So blame goes to a few different places

[vurbano]

From wikipedia:



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/embed_3-27.html

It was a stupid move. I would be interested to know what would have happened if we didnt allow those contracts. I bet the media would have been screaming in our court system. :augentreher:

[iceturkee]

Get the media out of the wars and then the politicians will be unable or uninterested in running them. Politicians respond to the public pressure generated by those bloody pictures on the TV and stories in print. It all starts with the media.


sorry there big fella but the media has an obligation to inform the public. that means good news and not so good news. my only problem with media and wars is how much censuring the government is doing.......thereby, precluding the media from reporting the truth and not what out government wants us to know!

[fallout2600]

sorry there big fella but the media has an obligation to inform the public. that means good news and not so good news. my only problem with media and wars is how much censuring the government is doing.......thereby, precluding the media from reporting the truth and not what out government wants us to know!

But remember, the army needs to edit their footage before they start releasing reports and videos, if not, some of those reports would give away troop positions and puts them in harms way. We are in the information age and the age of the internet, some info needs to be classified until later.

[iceturkee]

But remember, the army needs to edit their footage before they start releasing reports and videos, if not, some of those reports would give away troop positions and puts them in harms way. We are in the information age and the age of the internet, some info needs to be classified until later.


that is very true in some situations. but if you let the military put the news out, there is a lot of unsensitive information, that would never be printed or seen on television.

when i was in germany many years ago, we use to jokingly call stars and stripes.....stars and lies because we knew there was a lot of info that was never released. plus, my best friend worked for S&S about 10 years ago, spent time in bosnia (among other places) and can pretty much confirm.

[vurbano]

sorry there big fella but the media has an obligation to inform the public.
Holy crap on a stick!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hold on right there my lesbian friend. Not if it undermines the war effort they don't. Any reporter that does that should be tried for treason. Where is this bullsh*t obligation written down? In their own minds? In a book one of their pompous college teachers wrote in? Give me a break. An obligation they have given their own self appointed self righteous a@@es

[iceturkee]

Holy crap on a stick!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hold on right there my lesbian friend. Not if it undermines the war effort they don't. Any reporter that does that should be tried for treason. Where is this bullsh*t obligation written down? In their own minds? In a book one of their pompous college teachers wrote in? Give me a break. An obligation they have given their own self appointed self righteous a@@es


read my previous post. i said i agree that some information needs to remain classified. but the military wants to censure anything that isn't positive public relations.

and you can disagree with me (so what else is new) but a reporter has an obligation to report a news story in an unbiased mode, representing all points of view. then the reader decides. a reporter has an obligation to report true stories, even if that means it puts the military, a politician or a major corporation in an unfavorable light. a reporter does not have the right to reveal classified information.

that above info i was taught in journalism 101 which i took almost 40 years ago.

was it cnn or fox news who many years ago had a motto....we report, you decide. if a reporter is doing his or her job that should always be the truth!

[fallout2600]

that is very true in some situations. but if you let the military put the news out, there is a lot of unsensitive information, that would never be printed or seen on television.

when i was in germany many years ago, we use to jokingly call stars and stripes.....stars and lies because we knew there was a lot of info that was never released. plus, my best friend worked for S&S about 10 years ago, spent time in bosnia (among other places) and can pretty much confirm.

I gotta disagree about S&S. During 2005 when Iraq was going nuts, I checked the MidEast Edition of S&S every day. It was packed with more fact than CNN or FoxNews. Now, I could see how the European Edition would be loaded with nonsense, but I must say, the MidEast edition was quite informative. It usually supplied more detail to the one headline talking point story of the day we would see on the major networks.

[Skyhi]

Holy crap on a stick!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hold on right there my lesbian friend. Not if it undermines the war effort they don't. Any reporter that does that should be tried for treason. Where is this bullsh*t obligation written down? In their own minds? In a book one of their pompous college teachers wrote in? Give me a break. An obligation they have given their own self appointed self righteous a@@es

Spoken like a true communist.

[HDRoberts]

Holy crap on a stick!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hold on right there my lesbian friend. Not if it undermines the war effort they don't. Any reporter that does that should be tried for treason. Where is this bullsh*t obligation written down? In their own minds? In a book one of their pompous college teachers wrote in? Give me a break. An obligation they have given their own self appointed self righteous a@@es

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/612/44Nazi_Joseph_Goebbels.jpg
http://xs136.xs.to/xs136/09064/iraqi_information_minister_small680.jpg

Hey, I found some more people that agree with Vurb!

[iceturkee]

I gotta disagree about S&S. During 2005 when Iraq was going nuts, I checked the MidEast Edition of S&S every day. It was packed with more fact than CNN or FoxNews. Now, I could see how the European Edition would be loaded with nonsense, but I must say, the MidEast edition was quite informative. It usually supplied more detail to the one headline talking point story of the day we would see on the major networks.


sorry, i'm speaking about the european edition which i read daily for over 2 years. my friend also worked for the european edition. i was in germany 74 until 77. she was in germany 1999 until before 9/11. that might also explain the difference!