Barack Obama won't salute our flag.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:24 pm

Nomad;776021 wrote: There must be some way to make that bastard salute !
:yh_think :yh_glasse Mosquitoes ... genetically designed to bite only the forehead.

Geronimo · Post by **Geronimo** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:26 pm

barack obama is not representing the balck american as he is not black himself but arab!

he looks like a maroccan and like most maroccans men looks like.

Knowing south europeans area very well, i can tell you that i will not be surprised if his mother or father was marocan or was afiliated closely with marocan family.

Barack is an arabic name and so is Obama..

There is even a president ,. obarac who is president of Lybia that bare that name so..

If Hussein is really his middle name then he is family related to Saddam Hussein, as irak is made of family clans, marrid inside, and anyone carryign that name is of the clan one way or another..

so the guy runnign for president of the united States is not only arab but also in family with Saddam Hussein family clan..

Isnt life ironic??

i will even say cynic if he gets elected.. :-5 :p

i wonder how he get there unoticed.. funny how this 911 got a dobble effect on both extreeme.. you cant pass the airport check like beofre and got to wait for hours now, and at the same time Saddam Hussein grand cousin on the side of his oncle or so, is goig to be elected president of the United States..

i think its connected. Kind of bad consciousnees effect about the invasion of Irak or something like htat. that gives green pass where it wasnt thinkable before..

we can take it as a student exchange or more here as a prsident exchange, so Saddam in his tomb can say " you invaded my country for a short while but couldnt control it, while my blood and descendance took control over yours and wrote its laws!

Jerry · Post by **Jerry** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:29 pm

Respect goes both ways. If he wants the respect of the American people, and wants to be the President of USA, then he should respect the USA.

What is so damn wrong to salute the flag of USA? The USA will come to help other countries in a heart beat. Shame on you, Obama. Other USA Presidents have and will respect other countries flags. I say shame on you for even running for a country that you show no respect for.

If you can't show respect to a country that you want to run, then don't bother placing your left hand on the Bible, raise your right hand and says those words, because it's all a lie.

Jerry · Post by **Jerry** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:35 pm

:yh_rotflNomad;776021 wrote: There must be some way to make that bastard salute !

Yeah, tie his arm to his head. :wah: Or glue the side of his hand to his forehead.

:yh_rotfl

Geronimo · Post by **Geronimo** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:42 pm

Jerry;779411 wrote: Respect goes both ways. If he wants the respect of the American people, and wants to be the President of USA, then he should respect the USA.

What is so damn wrong to salute the flag of USA? The USA will come to help other countries in a heart beat. Shame on you, Obama. Other USA Presidents have and will respect other countries flags. I say shame on you for even running for a country that you show no respect for.

If you can't show respect to a country that you want to run, then don't bother placing your left hand on the Bible, raise your right hand and says those words, because it's all a lie.

The alone reason why he shoudl refuse to salute the american flag is if he is muslim AND member of an extremistic organsiation who forbid it.

Not only he should respect the country but its a must for him to respect the flag.

Even new born US citizens, like people form Mexico and all latin America and other country in th eworld who get their green card and their american nationality got to salute the flag, so if he doesnt he cannot run for president.

Another thing is that the president is also the chief of all armies thats him that decide to press the button for A-bomb and other key military decisions as this one.

So he got to be under the military laws too who crave that you salute the flag and swear that you will defend your country.

he cant twist and turn that one.

Something is definitly rotten that he is still running for presidency with that kind of bagage..doesnt sounds right to me nor reliable..

but mushy..

Any other candidate doing so will ahve been burried by the opposition since long.

How can this be accepted?

Jerry · Post by **Jerry** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:50 pm

yeah, but the more nice the US is to others that are not born there, the more disrespect the US gets in return. I worked with someoone that put down the US big time. Talking very dispectful, hun. I ask him, why do you live there if you hate it so much. He said ..you get things there..like a good education. Some "not all" come to the US to use it, and then show no respect for what the US has done for them.

Ciao, Bella! · Post by **Ciao, Bella!** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 6:30 pm

Geronimo;779410 wrote: barack obama is not representing the balck american as he is not black himself but arab!

he looks like a maroccan and like most maroccans men looks like.

Knowing south europeans area very well, i can tell you that i will not be surprised if his mother or father was marocan or was afiliated closely with marocan family.

Barack is an arabic name and so is Obama..

There is even a president ,. obarac who is president of Lybia that bare that name so..

If Hussein is really his middle name then he is family related to Saddam Hussein, as irak is made of family clans, marrid inside, and anyone carryign that name is of the clan one way or another..

so the guy runnign for president of the united States is not only arab but also in family with Saddam Hussein family clan..

Isnt life ironic??

i will even say cynic if he gets elected.. :-5 :p

i wonder how he get there unoticed.. funny how this 911 got a dobble effect on both extreeme.. you cant pass the airport check like beofre and got to wait for hours now, and at the same time Saddam Hussein grand cousin on the side of his oncle or so, is goig to be elected president of the United States..

i think its connected. Kind of bad consciousnees effect about the invasion of Irak or something like htat. that gives green pass where it wasnt thinkable before..

we can take it as a student exchange or more here as a prsident exchange, so Saddam in his tomb can say " you invaded my country for a short while but couldnt control it, while my blood and descendance took control over yours and wrote its laws!

Having lived in Spain for the better part of 6 years, I got to know quite a few Marroqui. Barack Obama does NOT look Moroccan to me. As for the rest of your post, give me proof.

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 6:39 pm

Ciao, Bella!;783295 wrote: Having lived in Spain for the better part of 6 years, I got to know quite a few Marroqui. Barack Obama does NOT look Moroccan to me. As for the rest of your post, give me proof.

Hello Bella:-6...good to see you...hope you're well:-6 Geronimo and Jerry, a team, have been banned and can't answer you right now...it's a long story:-:wah:

Omni_Skittles · Post by **Omni_Skittles** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 6:39 pm

ummm i don't think i can vote for someone who won't even salute HIS country's flag... even if he is Jehovah's witness... in which case what the hey is he doing running for office?

Ciao, Bella! · Post by **Ciao, Bella!** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:54 pm

Kathy Ellen;783296 wrote: Hello Bella:-6...good to see you...hope you're well:-6 Geronimo and Jerry, a team, have been banned and can't answer you right now...it's a long story:-:wah:

Whoa. I've been unable to check in, which is why it took me so long to respond to them. Great job of banning them, though.

Ciao, Bella! · Post by **Ciao, Bella!** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:02 pm

Omni_Skittles;783297 wrote: ummm i don't think i can vote for someone who won't even salute HIS country's flag... even if he is Jehovah's witness... in which case what the hey is he doing running for office?

Barack Obama does salute the flag. The photo everyone refers to was taken while someone was singing the National Anthem. Not everyone salutes during that song, you have to admit. Next time you're at a ball game, look around. I've seen people who won't even STAND during this song.

In the end, you have to vote for who best fits your definition of a president. However, I urge you to be well informed about each candidate beforehand.

Omni_Skittles · Post by **Omni_Skittles** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:14 pm

Ciao, Bella!;783326 wrote: Barack Obama does salute the flag. The photo everyone refers to was taken while someone was singing the National Anthem. Not everyone salutes during that song, you have to admit. Next time you're at a ball game, look around. I've seen people who won't even STAND during this song.

In the end, you have to vote for who best fits your definition of a president. However, I urge you to be well informed about each candidate beforehand.LOL Dude I'm from Texas! i dare you not to stand!!! I'm sorry I am very patriotic. I love my country and yea sometimes our government is screwed up... at least i can say the people did it themselves lol. The thing is... I know nothing about this Obama guy except what people tell me... honestly they aren't that reliable of a source haha

Ciao, Bella! · Post by **Ciao, Bella!** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:32 pm

Omni_Skittles;783327 wrote: LOL Dude I'm from Texas! i dare you not to stand!!! I'm sorry I am very patriotic. I love my country and yea sometimes our government is screwed up... at least i can say the people did it themselves lol. The thing is... I know nothing about this Obama guy except what people tell me... honestly they aren't that reliable of a source haha

Dude, I'm a lady. And, Texas is just like every other state in the union, full of it's share of people who don't/won't respect the flag. As for us: Husband is retired military, so don't tell me about not saluting during the anthem, nor coming to a standstill when the flag is being raised at sunrise/lowered at sunset. (Do you do that one? Can you sing the The Star Spangled Banner?) Go to Obama's website if you want more information. Otherwise, take my word for it. As I said in my first post in this thread, I've worked for Obama's campaign.

Omni_Skittles · Post by **Omni_Skittles** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:01 pm

Ciao, Bella!;783329 wrote: Dude, I'm a lady. And, Texas is just like every other state in the union, full of it's share of people who don't/won't respect the flag. As for us: Husband is retired military, so don't tell me about not saluting during the anthem, nor coming to a standstill when the flag is being raised at sunrise/lowered at sunset. (Do you do that one? Can you sing the The Star Spangled Banner?) Go to Obama's website if you want more information. Otherwise, take my word for it. As I said in my first post in this thread, I've worked for Obama's campaign.oops my bad sorry ma'am.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:54 am

Ciao, Bella!;783326 wrote: Barack Obama does salute the flag. The photo everyone refers to was taken while someone was singing the National Anthem. Not everyone salutes during that song, you have to admit. Next time you're at a ball game, look around. I've seen people who won't even STAND during this song.

In the end, you have to vote for who best fits your definition of a president. However, I urge you to be well informed about each candidate beforehand.
I expect my President to be the most patriotic person in the room. S/he's the one setting the example. Screw what "not everyone" does; if he can't be arsed to place his hand over his heart in public during our national anthem, how far will his disrespect go in private, behind the oval office doors?

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:38 am

Accountable;783419 wrote: I expect my President to be the most patriotic person in the room. S/he's the one setting the example. Screw what "not everyone" does; if he can't be arsed to place his hand over his heart in public during our national anthem, how far will his disrespect go in private, behind the oval office doors?

oh, i don't know.... some of those folks that always have their hand in the right position in public are later to be found getting bjs in private, behind the oval office doors.... still others demand constitutional amendments to protect our flag - while behind oval office doors they are plotting for us to bend over and take it up our constitutionally protected rights so that they can do whatever they want in the name of security.....

I don't need a posterboy... I think I want someone who is serious - just haven't decided who that is yet...

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:17 pm

The President respresents the USA. Enough people hold contempt for us without our top leader promoting it.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:47 pm

The President respresents the USA. Enough people hold contempt for us without our top leader promoting it.

Then why the **** did you elect Bush? TWICE!!! (ok, one and a half times)

Benjamin · Post by **Benjamin** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:01 pm

Accountable;783419 wrote: I expect my President to be the most patriotic person in the room. S/he's the one setting the example. Screw what "not everyone" does; if he can't be arsed to place his hand over his heart in public during our national anthem, how far will his disrespect go in private, behind the oval office doors?
That's not a reason for being against Obama; that's an excuse.

If you approve of the mismanagement of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the huge budget deficits, by all means support the republican candidate, but don't make up excuses.

Omni_Skittles · Post by **Omni_Skittles** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:25 pm

lol i thought excuses and reasons were good enough! lol

Ciao, Bella! · Post by **Ciao, Bella!** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:48 pm

flopstock;783527 wrote: oh, i don't know.... some of those folks that always have their hand in the right position in public are later to be found getting bjs in private, behind the oval office doors.... still others demand constitutional amendments to protect our flag - while behind oval office doors they are plotting for us to bend over and take it up our constitutionally protected rights so that they can do whatever they want in the name of security.....

I don't need a posterboy... I think I want someone who is serious - just haven't decided who that is yet...

I can't deny the truth in your post, flopstock! The very people who are supposed to be the epitome of wholesomeness often aren't.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:12 am

Benjamin;784273 wrote: That's not a reason for being against Obama; that's an excuse.

If you approve of the mismanagement of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the huge budget deficits, by all means support the republican candidate, but don't make up excuses.
Huh? :-2

Oh, I get it. Here's another one who's bought into the myth that there are only two choices -- only two sides to any issue.

Ben, do yourself a favor so you don't embarass yourself. Read more than the last post. That way you won't be taking things out of context.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:13 am

Our biggest talk radio station did an exclusive with Obama. I'm told it's being used worldwide, but here's the whole thing.

LINK

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:44 am

Different perspective for you

http://books.google.com/books?id=6mENs0 ... #PPA105,M1

Benjamin · Post by **Benjamin** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:47 am

Accountable;784409 wrote: Huh? :-2

Oh, I get it. Here's another one who's bought into the myth that there are only two choices -- only two sides to any issue.

No, but people generally make their decisions in either of two ways: they form an opinion and then find evidence to support that opinion (aka Bush) or look at the information and form their opinion using critical thinking. Of course, we all have our biases so it's not quite that clear cut, but people who are showing phoney outrage over this silly issue are not thinking critically. They are looking for an excuse to dislike Obama.

Now, before you embarass yourself again and look like a total fool, think about it.

Just kidding.

Note: I did come in late to the discussion so it may be out of context. I haven't been here for a while.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:56 pm

You may be right about the phoney outrage. Those of us with genuine outrage over this important issue of respect and tradition, however, are obviously of a different stripe.

Benjamin · Post by **Benjamin** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:17 pm

It's a silly issue. People who sincerely love this country are outraged about the huge debt, two wars with no end in sight, the economy faltering, loss of all credibility in the world, a government that doesn't defend or support our constitution, that doesn't think it needs to abide by the laws of our country...

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:36 pm

So you think tradition and respect are silly. I get that. I get that every day from our kids at school ... who learn it from disconnected and disrespectful adults.

Why do you suppose people are willing to give control of our society over to people so short-sighted as to run up a huge debt for short-term interests and turn our traditionally defensive strength into a weapon of conquest?

Why do you suppose people want to stop taking responsibility for their own health, wealth, and livlihoods as has been the proud American tradition for so long, and force those who have proven that the American Dream can be a reality to pay for it?

Silly. pfft

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:02 am

Accountable;785114 wrote: You may be right about the phoney outrage. Those of us with genuine outrage over this important issue of respect and tradition, however, are obviously of a different stripe.

Just out of curiosity are you equally outraged about people being held without trial, away from the protection of your court system and the use of torture on prisoners?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:12 am

gmc: Abu Ghraib was not our finest hour. :-1

Leaving aside the outrage to humanity, what annoyed me about both cases is that there is plenty of literature relating to the Milgrim (sp? - it's been a while) experiments showing that untrained people put in to "prison guard" roles frequently become unbalanced by it and behave as we have heard. This is a well known psychological phenomenon and the situation could have been avoided.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:11 am

gmc;785238 wrote: Just out of curiosity are you equally outraged about people being held without trial, away from the protection of your court system and the use of torture on prisoners?Just a degree or two off subject, wouldn't you agree?

My outrage would depend on the individual and the circumstances. Are the people prisoners of war or are they in some other category? Does your "torture" have the same definition as mine? Is it being used for sport, practice, or as an emergency measure to save lives?

Making such details public would put American soldiers' lives at unecessary risk. I will trust the military systems and checks to keep the situation humane.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:23 am

Clodhopper;785241 wrote: gmc: Abu Ghraib was not our finest hour. :-1

Leaving aside the outrage to humanity, what annoyed me about both cases is that there is plenty of literature relating to the Milgrim (sp? - it's been a while) experiments showing that untrained people put in to "prison guard" roles frequently become unbalanced by it and behave as we have heard. This is a well known psychological phenomenon and the situation could have been avoided.

Wasn't actually thinking of that. Guantanamo bay was what I was thinking of and the condoning of the torture of prisoners. Seems you have the right to bear weapons but not freedom from arrest without trial if someone decides you just might be a terrorist.

In any case it's a peculiarly american custom to salute when not wearing a headdress. As a consequence It does look a bit odd when you see it on TV.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:44 am

gmc: I was referring to both Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:46 am

gmc;785255 wrote: In any case it's a peculiarly american custom to salute when not wearing a headdress. As a consequence It does look a bit odd when you see it on TV.
So do kilts.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:08 am

Are the people prisoners of war or are they in some other category?

Doesn't matter. Torture is not under any circumstances justified. One of the major differences when our fathers or grandfathers fought the Axis in WW2 was they they used torture and we did not. It was a difference which defined the moral chasm between the Western Allies and the Totalitarian states. This was a chasm that continued to exist through the Cold War. What side of the chasm are you arguing that the USA should be on now?

Does your "torture" have the same definition as mine?

Come now. Torture is torment. It exists as much in the intent as the act - the torturer knows what he or she is doing. It can encompass a wide range of activities but it is still all torture.

Is it being used for sport, practice, or as an emergency measure to save lives?

It doesn't matter. Torture is still torure and morally unjustifiable. I thought it was now widely accepted that the end does not justify the means. You speak of tradition and respect for values, but they do not seem to be the traditions and values our parents and grandparents died for in WW2

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:19 am

Accountable;785262 wrote: So do kilts.

:yh_rotfl

Bet you look cute in your cowboy outfit.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:31 pm

Clodhopper;785264 wrote: Doesn't matter. Torture is not under any circumstances justified. One of the major differences when our fathers or grandfathers fought the Axis in WW2 was they they used torture and we did not. It was a difference which defined the moral chasm between the Western Allies and the Totalitarian states. This was a chasm that continued to exist through the Cold War. What side of the chasm are you arguing that the USA should be on now?

Come now. Torture is torment. It exists as much in the intent as the act - the torturer knows what he or she is doing. It can encompass a wide range of activities but it is still all torture.

It doesn't matter. Torture is still torure and morally unjustifiable. I thought it was now widely accepted that the end does not justify the means. You speak of tradition and respect for values, but they do not seem to be the traditions and values our parents and grandparents died for in WW2

Very well said - I couldn't have put it better myself :-6

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:58 pm

Came across this

I've never seen fox news except in snippets like this is it really this bad? Funniest bit was describing hilary clinton and obama as communists. I don't know what they are proposing in detail but you don't actually have any really left wing politicians do you?

Benjamin · Post by **Benjamin** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:39 pm

gmc;785914 wrote: Came across this

I've never seen fox news except in snippets like this is it really this bad? Funniest bit was describing hilary clinton and obama as communists. I don't know what they are proposing in detail but you don't actually have any really left wing politicians do you?

Fox is for people who can't think critically and need someone to tell them how and what to think.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:08 am

Clodhopper;785264 wrote: Doesn't matter. Torture is not under any circumstances justified. One of the major differences when our fathers or grandfathers fought the Axis in WW2 was they they used torture and we did not. It was a difference which defined the moral chasm between the Western Allies and the Totalitarian states. This was a chasm that continued to exist through the Cold War. What side of the chasm are you arguing that the USA should be on now?That first was about "people being held without trial, away from the protection of your [our] court system", not about torture

Clodhopper wrote: Come now. Torture is torment. It exists as much in the intent as the act - the torturer knows what he or she is doing. It can encompass a wide range of activities but it is still all torture.All? Come now. Torture is at the extreme end of the scale. Extreme is a subjective term. Some people consider solitary confinement as torture. The very act of sitting waiting to go into the next room, not knowing what waits on the other side of the door can be torture.

Clodhopper wrote: It doesn't matter. Torture is still torure and morally unjustifiable. I thought it was now widely accepted that the end does not justify the means. You speak of tradition and respect for values, but they do not seem to be the traditions and values our parents and grandparents died for in WW2GMC asked about outrage over a hypothetical. I'm sure you would be outraged before I would, and that we would be outraged together very soon after.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:22 am

gmc;785914 wrote: Came across this

I've never seen fox news except in snippets like this is it really this bad? Funniest bit was describing hilary clinton and obama as communists. I don't know what they are proposing in detail but you don't actually have any really left wing politicians do you?
It's only half that bad. I can't speak for all of those clips, but several are from shows I watch, and they always have people from both ends of the spectrum, usually with no one from the middle. That vid edited out the outraged person frothing at the mouth at the comment you heard.

Those are not news broadcasts, but political opinion sensationalist shows, except for a financial investment sensationalist show I noticed. They aren't there to show balanced news, but to express a balance of extreme opinions.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:31 am

That first was about "people being held without trial, away from the protection of your [our] court system", not about torture

The line from gmc to which you responded was:

Just out of curiosity are you equally outraged about people being held without trial, away from the protection of your court system and the use of torture on prisoners?

It seems to me that the reference to torture was explicit. If you chose not to respond to it you did not make that clear.

All? Come now. Torture is at the extreme end of the scale. Extreme is a subjective term. Some people consider solitary confinement as torture. The very act of sitting waiting to go into the next room, not knowing what waits on the other side of the door can be torture.

This is moral equivocation and simply a ducking of the issue. Having people imprisoned without any legal protections whatsoever is just setting up a situation where they are likely to be badly mistreated, especially when there is pressure on the unfortunates in charge to extract useful information. Slapping them around a bit is torture. Sleep deprivation is torture. Since there is no legal situation here, there is no legal definition that can be applied. That does not mean the mistreatment of these prisoners is not torture.

Do you approve of the "minor" torture of prisoners without rights for the purpose of extracting information on the grounds that some of that information may save lives, knowing that the unfortunate recipient is perfectly well aware that he or she is helpless and there is no reason why the "minor" slapping he or she is receiving can't escalate at the whim of the captors? (And a slapping is never "minor")

GMC asked about outrage over a hypothetical. I'm sure you would be outraged before I would, and that we would be outraged together very soon after.

Yesterday 09:39 PM

Eh? In what way is Guantanamo Bay "hypothetical"?

You are at the least coming very close to condoning torture and are using "tradition" and "values" to justify this position. I just want to make it quite clear that these are not the traditions or values of the great Western Democracies

for which so many from both our countries died in World War 2. Which side in that conflict used torture?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:07 am

Clodhopper;786210 wrote: The line from gmc to which you responded was:

It seems to me that the reference to torture was explicit. If you chose not to respond to it you did not make that clear.

This is moral equivocation and simply a ducking of the issue. Having people imprisoned without any legal protections whatsoever is just setting up a situation where they are likely to be badly mistreated, especially when there is pressure on the unfortunates in charge to extract useful information. Slapping them around a bit is torture. Sleep deprivation is torture. Since there is no legal situation here, there is no legal definition that can be applied. That does not mean the mistreatment of these prisoners is not torture.

Do you approve of the "minor" torture of prisoners without rights for the purpose of extracting information on the grounds that some of that information may save lives, knowing that the unfortunate recipient is perfectly well aware that he or she is helpless and there is no reason why the "minor" slapping he or she is receiving can't escalate at the whim of the captors? (And a slapping is never "minor")

Eh? In what way is Guantanamo Bay "hypothetical"?

You are at the least coming very close to condoning torture and are using "tradition" and "values" to justify this position. I just want to make it quite clear that these are not the traditions or values of the great Western Democracies

for which so many from both our countries died in World War 2. Which side in that conflict used torture?
As I indicated before, this is off the subject "Barack Obama won't salute our flag" and it's predictably getting statements mixed out of context. If you want to converse on this subject, I suggest starting another thread.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:52 am

I have no great desire to discuss any of this, but when you say that Barack Obama not saluting your flag is an offence to US values and traditions and Guantanamo Bay isn't then I feel it is very necessary - and relevant to the thread - to point out that whatever traditions and values you say are offended, they certainly aren't the ones our parents and grandparents died for in the Second World War. They more closely resemble the values and traditions of the totalitarian states our countries fought against, and you are trying to influence the way people on here vote on the basis of them.

How do you think Franklin or Lincoln would respond to the fact that there are now Americans who, if they're honest, would reply, "Torturer" when asked what their job was?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:13 am

posted by accountable

GMC asked about outrage over a hypothetical. I'm sure you would be outraged before I would, and that we would be outraged together very soon after.

Actually it's not actually hypothetical but it is a bit off topic so I was leaving it. However:

I was referring to the internment of suspected terrorists without trial in a camp away from the reach of your court system. IMO No free people should allow it's government to do that (and yes I do know the british did it in northern ireland and one of the reasons the US refused to extradite IRA terrorists was because they wouldn't get a fair trial and oh yes they were being interrogated) secondly the condoning of torture in their interrogation, specifically water boarding, by the administration.

I was curious as to your opinion. I didn't expect you to be unaware of it.