BBO Discussion Forums: Where Have We Gone Wrong? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Where Have We Gone Wrong?

#1 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,289
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2008-June-24, 20:39

I am sorry to revisit an earlier topic, but this piece left me feelling empty, as if I no longer knew, understood, or was a part of the same country in which I was reared. Perhaps it is only me and my earlier illusions of Camelot - crushed by the Vietnam Era, Watergate, and Tonkin Gulf lies. But this seems more even that those horrific times....

Quote

Published on Saturday, June 21, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
Keeping America Safe: Prosecuting Children as Terrorists
by Dave Lindorff

President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and the rest of the warmongers and terror-pimps in the White House would have us believe that Omar Khadr is a monster. Khadr is the 21-year-old Canadian who is facing one of the first show-trials at Guantanamo.

But let’s just step back a minute and consider Mr. Khadr’s case.

The son of an alleged Islamic fundamentalist, Khadr was sent to one of those fundamentalist madrassa schools in Pakistan back when he was 14. From there, he went to Afghanistan, to join with the Taliban in fighting against the remnant warlord backers of the Soviet Union, which had attempted to run Afghanistan as a vassal state.

Then came 9-11 and the October 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan. Young Khadr suddenly found himself fighting against the world’s most powerful military.

In 2002, after the Taliban government had fallen, Khadr was still out in the hills with the forces of resistance. The Taliban government was gone, but the war was not over. In fact it’s still not over, with the Taliban resurgent in much of Afghanistan.

In this situation, with some 20,000 US and European troops battling across Afghanistan, Khadr, by then at the ripe age of 15, found himself with a group of five older fighters in a compound up in the hills. Some US Special Forces came on the location, and, peeking through cracks in the door, saw the group, armed with AK rifles. They called on the men to surrender, but the men allegedly refused.

At that point the brave Americans called in an air strike, and clobbered the building. After that softening up, they went inside to pick up the pieces.

Someone at that point, and US military prosecutors claim it was the wounded Khadr, tossed a grenade while lying injured on the ground. The grenade killed Special Forces Sergeant Christopher Speer. Speer’s comrades opened fire, with three of them hitting Khadr.

When they went to check on him, the critically injured, yet miraculously still living Khadr reportedly pleaded, “Shoot me!” Reportedly, some of Sgt. Speer’s buddies were ready to do just that. Apparently the “clicking” of injured captives by American forces (a war crime) is not uncommon, and even has its own slang word. But a medic with the group interceded and stopped the battlefield execution, and took action to save Khadr’s life.

Khadr was eventually shipped off to Guantanamo, at the age of 15, in violation of a 2002 protocol signed by the US which extended the protection of the Geneva Conventions against imprisoning child soldiers from the prior “under 15″ standard to “under 18.” No matter, “bad guy” Khadr would be one of at least 2500 children that the US has admitted to incarcerating in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and elsewhere as “enemy combatants.”

Today, Khadr is 21. He has spent the second half of his teenage years confined in a prison camp on the naval base at Guantanamo.

This is what Bush and Cheney are really referring to when they assure us that they are holding “the worst of the worst” on the island of Cuba.

They are keeping us safe from 15-year-old boys.

And what, exactly, is Omar Khadr’s “crime”?

As far as I can tell, if he did toss that grenade (and there is testimony from American witnesses that the thrower may have been another man, who was killed in the resulting US barrage of fire), Khadr was simply demonstrating extraordinary bravery of the kind that would earn a silver star, at least, had it been a US soldier or marine doing the same thing under the same circumstances. Consider: he and his comrades-in-arms, battling in defense of their religion and, in some cases, their nation, were bombarded from the air. They were then approached by armed US troops-the very ones who had called in the air strike. This was a battle, and it was not over yet. For all Khadr knew, those US soldiers were going to kill them all. And in any event, Khadr and his fellow fighters had a right to defend themselves to the death to prevent capture. Sure it’s unfortunate that Sgt. Speer was killed, but that’s what happens in wars.

Still, a fighter killing another fighter during warfare is not the act of a “terrorist.” It may be brutal and it may be tragic, but it is the act of a soldier. That soldier, if captured, is not a criminal, but a POW. Moreover, if he is a child, the Geneva Conventions and the subsequent protocol mentioned above, require that he be treated not as a POW but as a victim of war.

Bush and Cheney don’t want to admit that the people fighting US forces in Afghanistan are legitimate soldiers, entitled to protection under the rules of war. They want us to believe that anyone who takes up a gun in defense of their homeland or of the homeland of their allies, and fights against the US military forces that are spread all over the globe like Roman Legions of old, are “terrorists,” deserving of whatever fate we hand them, by whatever rules we want to gin up.

But it’s worth remembering that this particular “terrorist,” at the time of his “crime,” was simply a scared and badly-wounded 15-year-old kid who had the balls to toss a grenade at well-armed soldiers on a search-and-destroy mission.

In an interesting twist that further highlights the absurdity of calling a 15-year-old a hardened terrorist, Speer’s widow, Tabitha, and another soldier who lost an eye in the grenade blast, sued not Khadr, but his father’s estate, claiming that his “failure to control his son” had been the proximate cause of their losses. A federal district judge, in February 2006, awarded the two $102.6 million in damages. In other words, the court concluded Khadr wasn’t responsible for his actions; his father was. And yet the US is prosecuting Omar Khadr for being a hardened terrorist at an age when he was too young to drive!

The Bush/Cheney administration’s incarceration and prosecution of this boy was a war crime. His continued incarceration and the attempt to prosecute him as a terrorist today makes a mockery of America’s motto: Home of the Brave.

We should all be ashamed.




Quote

A new poll of citizens’ attitudes about torture in 19 nations finds Americans among the most accepting of the practice. Although a slight majority say torture should be universally prohibited, 44 percent think torture of terrorist suspects should be allowed, and more than one in 10 think torture should generally be allowed.


We have become a nation of 44% morons - God or gods help us when they become the majority.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#2 User is offline   jtfanclub 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,937
  • Joined: 2004-June-05

Posted 2008-June-24, 21:30

'clicking' should not be considered a war crime. If an enemy wishes death on the battlefield over capture, I don't have a problem with the soldiers helping him out. I suppose technically they should have over a small knife and watch.

The story is obviously deeply slanted. An air strike is apparently now a cowardly act, or something. I would want to hear the whole story before I made decision on it.
0

#3 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,027
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:bye

Posted 2008-June-25, 02:42

I am reading the wikipedia article, and don't really get it... He's looking at 30 years of prison? 100M$ damages? wtf?
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

#4 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,276
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2008-June-25, 10:27

My father just sent me to an ordinary American high school, no doubt a severe lapse n his fatherly duties. I received absolutely no training in terrorist activities at my high school. Public education just isn't up to the job. My father did see to it that I was home schooled, or make that corn field schooled, in the shooting of pheasants so my upbringing wasn't a total waste in the shooting department.

I am sure his father is very proud of the way his son turned out. No need to be concerned.
Ken
0

#5 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2008-June-25, 16:23

what i like best about that article is its evenhandedness, its objectivity... i think all enemy combatants fighting americans could be up for various honors and medals, such as a silver star, but i've never actually heard anyone defend the killing of american soldiers by saying "if the shoe was on the other foot a medal would have been awarded"... sheesh
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#6 User is offline   onoway 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,220
  • Joined: 2005-August-17

Posted 2008-June-25, 21:03

I understand they are justifying this on the basis that he was not wearing a uniform, therefore he cannot be considered a soldier, he must be a terrorist. On the other hand, I haven't heard that Americans are knowingly allowing 15 year olds to be in the army, so that's a bit of a peculiar stand.

And I dunno..if my house had been bombed, and a bunch of "enemy"soldiers with guns were swooping in and I was hurt and scared and believed they would kill me or send me somewhere to be tortured and then maybe killed, I just might try to defend myself by throwing a grenade if one was around. He was injured before the soldiers even got to the house, so had very few options at the time. There isn't even consensus it was he who threw it. And he was a CHILD.

I wonder how the American government can possibly think that this sort of thing is helping in any sort of way? It is against the Geneva convention, it is against common sense and it certainly is an example of why American government is so mistrusted..the rule of law for anyone but them, it seems.

Also, because it is a particularly sad example of how things are going, and is something that (I think) Americans should be deeply ashamed of, doesn't mean it isn't true. It just might be that that is really all there is to the story.

The story is one thing...what really makes me feel a degree of despair is reading the reactions to the story..as though this could possibly be defensible behaviour. The land of the free and the home of the brave....the might of the US vs a 15 year old child( at the time) whose access to legal council has been severely restricted..in a court where nobody could possibly be accused of being impartial, and where it seems the rules of evidence are designed to accommodate the desired result. Though the fact that is to be a trial at all is a victory of sorts, it has been reported Bush is unhappy about this and is considering ways to circumvent the Supreme Court's decision.

First they came for the man down the street.....I hope you know that story, because it seems to be being acted out in the States right now, wouldn't want it to be a shock when you realize how a contempt for rule of law and respect for human rights has little concern with borders. It seems to me that the war against terrorism has done far far more damage to the world and the economy,safety, health and happiness of people than anything any terrorist could ever have dreamed of accomplishing.
0

#7 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,356
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Interests:History, languages

Posted 2008-June-26, 04:55

jtfanclub, on Jun 25 2008, 04:30 AM, said:

'clicking' should not be considered a war crime. If an enemy wishes death on the battlefield over capture, I don't have a problem with the soldiers helping him out.

Have to disagree with that one. Someone shouting "kill me" is hardly evidence that he really has a persistent and well-considered desire to die. Besides, it would be too easy for someone accused of killing a captive to say "he asked me to". Good luck proving him wrong.

That said, this whole concept of "war crime" feels somewhat hypocrite to me. It is normal practice to destroy the infrastructure of another country, thereby indirectly killing thousands of civilians. Given that, "war crime" sounds like a pleonasm.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#8 User is offline   jtfanclub 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,937
  • Joined: 2004-June-05

Posted 2008-June-26, 08:41

helene_t, on Jun 26 2008, 05:55 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jun 25 2008, 04:30 AM, said:

'clicking' should not be considered a war crime.  If an enemy wishes death on the battlefield over capture, I don't have a problem with the soldiers helping him out.

Have to disagree with that one. Someone shouting "kill me" is hardly evidence that he really has a persistent and well-considered desire to die. Besides, it would be too easy for someone accused of killing a captive to say "he asked me to". Good luck proving him wrong.

And good luck on proving him wrong when the guy says "I thought he had a gun, so I shot him". I don't know that anybody, of any country, has ever been convicted for shooting somebody who is seriously injured rather than taking them captive.

Once a person has been taken captive, it's a different story.

Keep in mind this particular case, we also have a videotape of him making IEDs and suicide bomber vests (look around, you'll find it). I feel sorry that the kid was brainwashed at 10. But he was still going to be brainwashed at 15, 20, 25...I'm not going to let one of bin Laden's lieutenants go because he wasn't what we currently consider to be of an age to join the military (never mind the 14 year olds who signed up to fight for us in WWI).
0

#9 User is offline   onoway 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,220
  • Joined: 2005-August-17

Posted 2008-June-26, 20:44

So is a child of 3 years old who helps carry material to his daddy to make a vest a terrorist? is he when he is 8? 12? The U. S. agreed on an arbitrary age below which a person is to be considered a child. This person was under that age at the time.
0

#10 User is offline   jtfanclub 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,937
  • Joined: 2004-June-05

Posted 2008-June-26, 21:40

onoway, on Jun 26 2008, 09:44 PM, said:

So is a child of 3 years old who helps carry material to his daddy to make a vest a terrorist? is he when he is 8? 12? The U. S. agreed on an arbitrary age below which a person is to be considered a child. This person was under that age at the time.

So, if he had been in the United States at 15, planted mines, made suicide vests, thrown grenades, would he have been treated as an adult, or as a child?

I don't buy this crap. We'd treat him as an adult here, we should treat him as an adult there. If he'd simply been a soldier, even if he'd thrown the grenade at a medic, that's one thing. But this was, well, more.

I can't say I'm in favor of anybody going to Gitmo for 6 freakin' years, but I'm not buying any of the poor little kid stuff.
0

#11 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,080
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2008-June-27, 20:01

Well, the Bush legacy has found a new way to screw the American people.

No taxes to pay for a war......but they are spending billions....oh yeah, borrowed from the Chinese....so that the rich can keep their money, the mil-ind complex keeps going, and eventually...well it IS only the peeps that will be bankrupt...again.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#12 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,250
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2008-June-28, 08:56

Al_U_Card, on Jun 27 2008, 09:01 PM, said:

Well, the Bush legacy has found a new way to screw the American people.

No taxes to pay for a war......but they are spending billions....oh yeah, borrowed from the Chinese....so that the rich can keep their money, the mil-ind complex keeps going, and eventually...well it IS only the peeps that will be bankrupt...again.

Actually in America Congress and the people Americans elect to Congress have the power to tax and who to tax, not Bush. NonAmericans sometimes forget this. :P
Blame the voters, the American people, not Bush. :)
0

#13 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,276
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2008-June-28, 11:22

onoway, on Jun 26 2008, 09:44 PM, said:

So is a child of 3 years old who helps carry material to his daddy to make a vest a terrorist?  is he when he is 8? 12?  The U. S. agreed on an arbitrary age below which a person is to be considered a child. This  person was under that age at the time.

It's of course a good question Pam. Some of this is tough.


Locally, four youngsters, two boys and two girls, members of the Skullcruseres gang, recently (allegedly) kicked an old man to death for no particular reason other than that they felt like it. They are 14 and 15. What to do?

While crime is going down somewhat, this senseless teenage violence seems to be an exception. You want to put them in juvie until they are 18 and then send them on their way? Three of them ( don't know about the fourth) are charged as adults with first degree murder. Not great, but what else?

As to the "child" in the op, he was out on a battlefield pulling pins and throwing grenades. I was 15 once. I did not regard myself as a child nor was I much treated as one. Some kids have lousy parents and lead lousy lives. I can't help that.

I don't regard myself as hard hearted but not every problem comes out with a happy ending.
Ken
0

#14 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,080
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2008-June-28, 14:23

mike777, on Jun 28 2008, 09:56 AM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jun 27 2008, 09:01 PM, said:

Well, the Bush legacy has found a new way to screw the American people.

No taxes to pay for a war......but they are spending billions....oh yeah, borrowed from the Chinese....so that the rich can keep their money, the mil-ind complex keeps going, and eventually...well it IS only the peeps that will be bankrupt...again.

Actually in America Congress and the people Americans elect to Congress have the power to tax and who to tax, not Bush. NonAmericans sometimes forget this. :unsure:
Blame the voters, the American people, not Bush. :)

Legacy, Mike, as in Prescott, G.H.W. as well as W. Only 50 years of subservience and descent....not so bad for government by, of and for certain people.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#15 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,289
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2008-June-29, 07:14

Quote

I wonder how the American government can possibly think that this sort of thing is helping in any sort of way? It is against the Geneva convention, it is against common sense and it certainly is an example of why American government is so mistrusted..the rule of law for anyone but them, it seems.


Well-stated. I amazes me that so many in the U.S. cannot or will not understand this - especially the last line: "rule of law for anyone but them".

Gitmo bypasses the rule of law and places decisions into the hands of one man: define that as monarchy, not republic. Yet, the reason we claim to fight is to protect out way of life, our republic.

Sweet irony served as a cold plate of obfuscation.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#16 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,276
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2008-June-29, 10:26

Winstonm, on Jun 29 2008, 08:14 AM, said:

Quote

I wonder how the American government can possibly think that this sort of thing is helping in any sort of way? It is against the Geneva convention, it is against common sense and it certainly is an example of why American government is so mistrusted..the rule of law for anyone but them, it seems.


Well-stated. I amazes me that so many in the U.S. cannot or will not understand this - especially the last line: "rule of law for anyone but them".

Gitmo bypasses the rule of law and places decisions into the hands of one man: define that as monarchy, not republic. Yet, the reason we claim to fight is to protect out way of life, our republic.

Sweet irony served as a cold plate of obfuscation.

Actually, as near as I can tell, America has been dumped on my entire life. It doesn't matter who our president is (well, for a brief period in the 60's everyone was gaga over Jackie) and it doesn't matter what our policies are. Debating our policies is of course sensible but bringing up the fact that we are not loved is pretty irrelevant. It's been a constant for my 69 years and I don't expect it to change.

I keep thinking that just by dumb luck we must have done something right sometime but if so I haven't heard about it from folks outside the country. On a cab ride in London in the 70s the driver kept up a steady rant during the entire trip about what a lousy job America did during the Second World War. Was I supposed to apologize?

So ague for a policy or argue against it but skip over the "That's why we are mistrusted/hated/unloved/etc" stuff. Really, that part will not change.
Ken
0

#17 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,250
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2008-June-29, 11:27

Winstonm, on Jun 29 2008, 08:14 AM, said:

Quote

I wonder how the American government can possibly think that this sort of thing is helping in any sort of way? It is against the Geneva convention, it is against common sense and it certainly is an example of why American government is so mistrusted..the rule of law for anyone but them, it seems.


Well-stated. I amazes me that so many in the U.S. cannot or will not understand this - especially the last line: "rule of law for anyone but them".

Gitmo bypasses the rule of law and places decisions into the hands of one man: define that as monarchy, not republic. Yet, the reason we claim to fight is to protect out way of life, our republic.

Sweet irony served as a cold plate of obfuscation.

Winston, you have hit the nail on the head. 7 years after 9-11, the American public, Congress, the Courts and yes the President still have not decided which of the many many rules of law and standards(and they differ in many ways) apply to detainees in the War on Terror or whatever you prefer to call it.

I agree the Geneva Convention and the US Military Code of Justice is a good first step but let us not be naive. What that means as far as the "rule of law" will be subject to neverending interpretation.

Some even go further and suggest before an 18 or 19 year old Marine is allowed to shoot, bomb or kick down the door they should get a warrant or a judge's permission.

Of course many believe that this so called war is illegal or immoral or unjust so whatever the troops do it is simply wrong.

IMO if the American public cannot decide which rules of law and evidence apply, and we continue to send a "split" Congress who continue to send mixes messages of what is legal or their duty in the field to our young men and women, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
0

#18 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,289
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2008-June-29, 11:49

Quote

I agree the Geneva Convention and the US Military Code of Justice is a good first step but let us not be naive. What that means as far as the "rule of law" will be subject to neverending interpretation.


Mike,

The question that has to be answered is this: is there a third state apart from the present two of war and peace, and if there is such a thing do the war powers of the president extend into that third state?

The U.S. is technically not at war as Congress has not declared war.
The "war on terror" is solely the President's war, who has no authority to commit the U.S. to war.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#19 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,080
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2008-June-29, 12:54

mike777, on Jun 29 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

Some even go further and suggest before an 18 or 19 year old Marine is allowed to shoot, bomb or kick down the door they should get a warrant or a judge's permission.

The president certainly has decided....everyone and everything that is not to the liking of his controlling interests gets stepped on, rights and all.

Illegal as well as immoral AND unintelligent, but very very profitable for those in control.

Wake up before you pass the torch onto another sleeper.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#20 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,250
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2008-June-29, 14:55

Winstonm, on Jun 29 2008, 12:49 PM, said:

Quote

I agree the Geneva Convention and the US Military Code of Justice is a good first step but let us not be naive. What that means as far as the "rule of law" will be subject to neverending interpretation.


Mike,

The question that has to be answered is this: is there a third state apart from the present two of war and peace, and if there is such a thing do the war powers of the president extend into that third state?

The U.S. is technically not at war as Congress has not declared war.
The "war on terror" is solely the President's war, who has no authority to commit the U.S. to war.


My guess the answer to your question is we, America, does it by trial and error. The third state, is not that different from your other two options. Whether state of war or state of peace or whatever you prefer to call this third state, they are all; wake up in the morning and trial and error. This time around trial and error for 7 years. We bumble around, zigzag all over the place and hope we solve the issue of 9-11 somehow someway.


Ok and who else ultimately decides if not the voters. Congress has the power of the purse , but we elect them. The President has the power to enforce the law but we elect 'em. The court has the power to interpert the law but no powers of enforcement.

You keep asking this same question but no one has answered since the early Indian wars, let alone Korea or Vietnam. OTOH hand Congress keeps funding these "wars" and keeps getting relected. This has been going on since day one.

If you got the answer and a way to implement it.....do it and best wishes.
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users