Is this administration exchanging terrorist prisoners for hostages?

[techboy]

out of curiosity how do you do a link like that??? I've been trying to figure it out for the last 30 minutes...

If you hit quote on my post, you'll see the code in the text box before you hit submit. It's the stuff that starts with ""

[hokie4redskins]

:blahblah:

You're putting words in my mouth. I said "we crushed." The general "we" as in the "U.S."

Never once did I say "the Marines crushed the barbary threat"......."in the first Barbary war" as you assert. So please quit making **** up. Thanks.

Frankly, I'm not even sure what you're arguing about. You're claiming the U.S. negotiated with terrorists in our infancy?

I seriously doubt not negotiating with terrorism was a U.S. policy in the late 18th century. You're acting like Jefferson was slamming his fist on his desk screaming "Durn Terrorists!!!" Did anybody even know what a "terrorist" was back then? I seriously doubt the term had made it into our policy lexicon a mere decade after the British surrendered.

Spin it all you want, but both Europeans and Americans moved through Mediterranean waters with impunity after Barbary II. You'd think you'd notice the rise in European colonization after the Barbary threat was destroyed.

And you're making a sweeping generalization on what a terrorist is. Terrorists, in general, coerce and intimidate governments to acquiesce to their ideological or religious objectives. The Barbary Pirates were in it for economic gain, plain and simple. The weren't out to convert or slay Western infidels to attain their political goals.

The Barbary Pirates were essentially toll booths on the high seas for their puppet masters on the North Africa coast. To equate them to terrorists is laughable.......and anachronistic.

But just to be clear from your post, Thomas Jefferson was a conniving, manipulative, traitorous moron?

Does that about sum it up?

:thumbsup:

[skinfan133]

Replace it through democratic channels (i.e., elections), not force.

Well, "taxation without representation" was a big deal. That doesn't really apply here (FYI, just because you don't like someone's policies, that doesn't mean you're being oppressed or otherwise unrepresented).

No, I won't just roll over. I will exercise my right to vote and speak out.

If a person believes in overthrowing a government elected by the majority of Americans and in conformity with the Constitution, I think it's safe to say they're probably un-American.

you are COMPLETELY missing my point.

I have never advocated overthrowing the government.

I probably never will

see bold underlined: please show me where I said this! you're just a hack trying to put words in my mouth, making me into a strawman caricature which you can then manipulate to fit your own (strange) worldview.

by tyrannical and abusive, I mean a truly totalitarian government that undermines the bill of rights and the constitution, I thought I made that clear with all my talk about the constitution, but hey, some people still can't put two and two together, so now I've spelled it out.

I am talking on a strictly THEORETICAL level.

and furthermore, I'd like to know what basis you have to judge my partiotism

[Burgold]

you are COMPLETELY missing my point.

I have never advocated overthrowing the government.

I'd like to know what basis you have to judge my partiotism

freedom of speech

It allows us to cast judgements on everything mwhwhahahahaha

[skinfan133]

freedom of speech

It allows us to cast judgements on everything mwhwhahahahaha

I only support free speech if it's speech I agree with

[Madison Redskin]

and furthermore, I'd like to know what basis you have to judge my partiotism

Okay guy. I said it's un-American to want to overthrowour democratically elected government. Apparently you don't disagree. So, what exactly is the problem?

[skinfan133]

Okay guy. I said it's un-American to want to overthrowour democratically elected government. Apparently you don't disagree. So, what exactly is the problem?

you're pigeon-holding me. you're putting words in my mouth and making my argument into a frankenstein AND insulting my patriotism, you really think a reasonable person wouldn't have a problem with that??

[Madison Redskin]

you're pigeon-holding me. you're putting words in my mouth and making my argument into a frankenstein AND insulting my patriotism, you really think a reasonable person wouldn't have a problem with that??

I said it is un-American to call for our democratically elected government to be overthrown. You made clear that you don't want to do that. With that clarification, I don't think you are un-American or as American as apple pie. So, I still don't see what the problem is.

[Dan T.]

you're pigeon-holding me. you're putting words in my mouth and making my argument into a frankenstein AND insulting my patriotism, you really think a reasonable person wouldn't have a problem with that??

You might not be un-American, but apparently your reading comprehension needs work, if your responses to Madison Redskin is any indication.

[skinfan133]

If you hit quote on my post, you'll see the code in the text box before you hit submit. It's the stuff that starts with ""

nope, I don't see that

[JMS]

You're putting words in my mouth. I said "we crushed." The general "we" as in the "U.S."

Here is what you said regarding the First Barbary Coast war of 1801-1805.

Treaty Shmreaty. We crushed the Barbary pirates because we were unwilling to negotiate for safe passage through Mediterranean waters. The U.S. Navy provided safe passage.

We did not "crush" anybody. We were paying tribute before the war, we paid ransom during the war amounting to even more tribute, and we continued to pay tribute after the war. Up until the second Barbary cost war of 1815.

In reality Jefferson yanked his support for the entire first Barbary coast war early in our invasion, after it was having some success; in favor of paying off the pirates.

Frankly, I'm not even sure what you're arguing about. You're claiming the U.S. negotiated with terrorists in our infancy?

We did, have done, and are doing today.

I seriously doubt not negotiating with terrorism was a U.S. policy in the late 18th century. You're acting like Jefferson was slamming his fist on his desk screaming "Durn Terrorists!!!" Did anybody even know what a "terrorist" was back then? I seriously doubt the term had made it into our policy lexicon a mere decade after the British surrendered.

Jefferson might not have used the term "terrorist" but that's pedantic. Jefferson was certainly slamming his fist on the table and roundly criticizing Adams for paying off the Barbary pirates. Something Jefferson then set about doing too.

Spin it all you want, but both Europeans and Americans moved through Mediterranean waters with impunity after Barbary II. You'd think you'd notice the rise in European colonization after the Barbary threat was destroyed.

Actually we were talking the first Barbary war of 1805. We stopped paying the Barbary pirates after the second Barbary war of 1815. The Europeans stopped paying them off in the 1840's.

And you're making a sweeping generalization on what a terrorist is. Terrorists, in general, coerce and intimidate governments to acquiesce to their ideological or religious objectives. The Barbary Pirates were in it for economic gain, plain and simple. The weren't out to convert or slay Western infidels to attain their political goals.

Ah so it's not terrorism if you are seeking cash? I think a terrorist is a person who coerces and intimidates through terror to achieve their goals regardless of what those goals are. It's a tactic to achieve what you want. It's not restricted based on what you want.

The Barbary Pirates were essentially toll booths on the high seas for their puppet masters on the North Africa coast. To equate them to terrorists is laughable.......and anachronistic.

If you paid them that is true. If you didn't pay them, they would enslave your citizens, murder your citizens, prey upon and destroy your shipping. Terror was certainly an element of their persuasion.

But just to be clear from your post, Thomas Jefferson was a conniving, manipulative, traitorous moron?

Does that about sum it up?

Jefferson was a complex man.

There was a single man who George Washington's will bared from his funeral. That was fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson. Washington's Private secretary Tobias Lear, after Washington's death; subsequently becomes the beneficiary of Jefferson's support and patronage; and every scrap of paper, correspondence, or unflattering utterance disappears from Washington's private papers.

We know Tobias Lear leveraged his control of Washington's private papers into political capital, because he made the offer to do so in exchange for considerations to Alexander Hamilton in writing; and that document still exists today.

We also know Thomas Jefferson badly handled the first Barbary war, and we know Tobias Lear was his representative in those negotiations.

:thumbsup:

It's history. I'm not saying anything with regards to Jefferson which isn't a historical fact. Jefferson was a complex politician. His vision and speeches of the United States were among the greatest and lasting vision of the country. His political legacy was one of the greatest dynasties of the early United States until Jackson. Three or Four of the presidents who followed Jefferson into office were his close associates. Which is quite a legacy.

Jefferson also was a slave owner who publicly condemned slavery. Jefferson fathered children with his slave Sally Hemmings and left some of those children in slavery throughout and after his life. Jefferson regularly slandered his political rivals anonymously and erroneously including Washington. Jefferson was a serial philanderer, and a coward when it came to dueling for his indiscretions/affairs and character assassination publications. Jefferson's association/dealing with Tobias Lear is just another instance of Jefferson's extreme duality.

Great orator, politician, and visionary; but in his real world dealings rather bent, even for his time.

[hokie4redskins]

Up until the second Barbary cost war of 1815.

.

This is what I've been referring to the whole GD time.

:doh:

Why you're insisting I was referring to 1801-1805 is beyond me. Did we or did we not crush the Barbary threat? What on earth are you arguing about?

Again, please quit putting non-existent arguments into my posts.

Thanks.

[MrMarcus1914]

Is there the ghost of Oliver North.

[JMS]

This is what I've been referring to the whole GD time.

:doh:

Why you're insisting I was referring to 1801-1805 is beyond me.

I apologize. Your point was "we crushed the Barbary pirates" in 1815, because we "refused to netotiate with them", after we had been paying them tribute for decades, concluded a treaty with them in the 1790's, and again in 1805 each time handing over large sums of money to them in exchange for not harrasing our interests.

And that by noting we crushed them in 1815 in the second barbary war, it refuted my post that stated factually we had been negotiating and paying them off in the Adams, Jefferson, and Madison administrations.

Relivent to the overall point of America having a long history of negotiating with terrorists.

Did we or did we not crush the Barbary threat?What on earth are you arguing about?

Eventually. yes we did. Not because we refused to negotiate with them. Not because we bombastically or morally refused to pay them off. Rather after having paid them off for decades, they simple asked for too much money, and it became economically more attractive to use a military option.

It's not an example of America's unyeilding moral sense of right and wrong; It's rather a historical example of early American pragmatism.

[hokie4redskins]

I apologize.

No worries.

Regardless, I think there's a not-so-fine line between what I call diplomacy and what you call negotiating with terrorists. There's also a not-so-fine line between our respective definitions of terrorism (which is generally the case for everyone) so I'm going to let this argument go.