Petraeus Backs Closing Gitmo

[LeesburgSkinFan]

Well, I guess he's no longer "General Be-Tray-us".

[Larry]

No, but they would not be very persuasive.

I am convinced that closing Gitmo would be a net gain for our security interests. General Petraeus apparently agrees. Arguments have been made for the other point of view, but I do not find them to be very compelling or well thought out.

What else am I supposed to say? That all arguments are equal? They aren't - not even to a lawyer.

Actually, I'd observe that there exist some issues where no, I don't think I could come up with an argument for one side. The example that comes to mind is the folks who want the government to discriminate against gays.

(In fact, I point out that the way I feel I've proven that this position is, in fact, nothing more than discrimination, is because as near as I can tell, there is no rational argument for why the government should do that. IMO, if there were a logical reason for that position, then it wouldn't be discrimination.)

But I do admit that there are a lot of issues where I can at least see logical reasoning exhibited by both sides. (In many of those discussions, I'll even point out what I see as logical arguments by both sides.)

[Ax]

If you look closely, you'll observe, at the end of my post, a curious symbol. I've magnified it, below, for illustrative purposes:

?

This symbol is called a "question mark". (See; Condescending)

It's on the end of my post, because I was asking you what your point was.

Yes, you usually do give yourself "plausible deny ability" in your posts. That way you get to suggest strongly, under the guise of a question. Very nice.

(The reason I was asking you what your point was, was because, at least as near as I can tell, you didn't actually make one, in your post (which I quoted).)

You're right, I didn't, exactly. Just like, you weren't really asking a question.

You see, that funny symbol at the end is the reason why my post wasn't "taking a response, putting your own spin on it, then crediting it to the OP". My post, (because of that funny symbol at the end) was a request for you to actually state your point. Playing by your rules, if you actually read my post, I never said you did, here, only that you could, and were very good at it. (As opposed to what appeared, to me, to be a demand that Burgold invent arguments for you.)

This shows a lack of concentration right here, Lawrence. 'Twas Predicto I had quoted. Please, try to keep up.

And I observe that it appears that you actually comprehended this request, since you apparently chose to answer my question, below:

For which I thank you, because I now think that I comprehend your point. (It's amazing how much easier it is to comprehend people's points when they actually say what they are.) (See; Condescending)

Although, the above-quoted response, which appears, to me, to at least suggest that you did grasp the fact that my post was a request for you to actually state your point, does cause me to wonder as to why you chose to open your post by claiming that I was doing something which you actually knew was neither what I said nor my motive.

Again, I claimed nothing. Guilty conscience?

I suppose that, if I were inclined to attempt to assign motives to other people, I would wonder why a person would open a post by claiming that someone was saying one thing, and then, in the next paragraph, revealing that they actually knew that the person said something else.

Fortunately, I'm above such things. :halo:

BTW ~ You really are good at this.:cheers:

[Predicto]

BTW ~ You really are good at this.:cheers:

He's the liberal Kilmer17.

[hokie4redskins]

Of course he does. He's not going to blast his boss who just decided to holdover a Bush appointment.

Doesn't change the fact that closing Gitmo is the most useless symbolic gesture in history. Why are we doing this?

Because otherwise the world thinks we're a bunch of meanies?

So we can appease the leftist peacniks?

So Obama actually follows through with a campaign promise?

So we can move enemies of the state from one high-security facility to another one while wasting valuable resources?

Utterly pointless.

[Predicto]

Of course he does. He's not going to blast his boss who just decided to holdover a Bush appointment.

Doesn't change the fact that closing Gitmo is the most useless symbolic gesture in history. Why are we doing this?

Because otherwise the world thinks we're a bunch of meanies?

So we can appease the leftist peacniks?

So Obama actually follows through with a campaign promise?

So we can move enemies of the state from one high-security facility to another one while wasting valuable resources?

Utterly pointless.

I think he wants to do it just to raise your blood pressure. :laugh:

[Larry]

He's the liberal Kilmer17.

1) I actually state my positions.

2) And it's libertarian.

[Seabee1973]

1) There are no rights of US Citizens.

(Well, OK. I suppose the right to vote in US elections counts. But I can't think of another. And so far, I haven't seen anybody accuse ACORN of trying to register detainees to vote. (But I'm certain that the accusation will be coming soon.))

2) You also appear to be suffering from the delusion that "rights" somehow depend on a person's location. This is also untrue.

That woul dbe an expensive vote going all the way to CUBA

[Ax]

I am convinced that closing Gitmo would be a net gain for our security interests. General Petraeus apparently agrees. Arguments have been made for the other point of view, but I do not find them to be very compelling or well thought out.

What else am I supposed to say? That all arguments are equal? They aren't - not even to a lawyer.

Of course they aren't. I was just suggesting that Petraeus could use disinformation, misleading information, or incomplete information, in such a way as to help him, and therefore, those under his command, achieve their mission, without being a liar.

Lawyers make a living doing it. Which I thought you, of all people, could appreciate.

I still think the move is purely symbolic, and will do nothing to help us. And, I would expect any military man/woman who is responsible for the lives of the people under their command to publicly state things they believe might help them, whether or not they really believe it. That wouldn't be lying in my book, either.

Also, his use of the term, "responsibly", leaves the issue wide open, IMO.

[Ax]

Actually, I'd observe that there exist some issues where no, I don't think I could come up with an argument for one side. The example that comes to mind is the folks who want the government to discriminate against gays.

(In fact, I point out that the way I feel I've proven that this position is, in fact, nothing more than discrimination, is because as near as I can tell, there is no rational argument for why the government should do that. IMO, if there were a logical reason for that position, then it wouldn't be discrimination.)

Maybe, it's too personal for you, which doesn't allow the open mindedness you would need to try and see the opposing argument, that it is not discrimination.

Lots of things are too personal to people, myself included, keeping us from seeing an opposing viewpoint. That's another reason I tried using the "paid/lawyer/it's your job" analogy. Since that can, sometimes, trump personal feelings on a particular issue.

[Redskins Diehard]

No, but they would not be very persuasive.

I am convinced that closing Gitmo would be a net gain for our security interests. General Petraeus apparently agrees. Arguments have been made for the other point of view, but I do not find them to be very compelling or well thought out.

What else am I supposed to say? That all arguments are equal? They aren't - not even to a lawyer.

GEN Petraeus believes in responsible closing GITMO. Until there is a plan, and we know whether or not he thinks it is responsible, I think it premature to cite him as support for the real position that is being debated here. Is the President right or wrong in saying he would close GITMO within the year.