Stop the torture of Bradley Manning

Oh more bullshit from the Dumb and Dumbest section of WF. Even in Iraq, not a single contract went to a US based company. In fact as I recall, none of the US oil companies even bothered to compete for the oil contracts in Iraq.

I already posted it Dayton. Don't know what to tell you.

You recall wrongly. Unless Exxon, to give one example, aren't American.

Yet, even in your own article, the following should be noted.

You have an Official Scrapbook?

What does that even mean? Is that for when you're elected President or something?

What does that quote have to do with the fact that you're wrong?

Why should that be noted? It's irrelevant to any point of disagreement here.

So.....WWII was all smoke + mirrors? Germany + Japan were just misunderstood. They would never have gotten any further than....New York + Los Angeles. Okay, maybe DC and Oklahoma City, but that's it...we would have stopped them there. BTW Europe would be Hitler's but the trains would run on time!

Just clarifying which companies have the biggest contracts. I'm sorry, Shoes, did you not quite get that?

Yes, I was clearly incorrect about Exxon having participated in the bidding and receiving a contract.

Because it is noteworthy Dick.

Our representatives don't run the war or provide security on a daily basis. That would be lack of democracy. Yes, our civilian representatives should be accountable to the people.

But last time I checked, I never got to vote for General of The Army.
Are you saying that the military should have open elections? That our day-to-day operations should be made public?

I'm not sure what you're driving at here.

I got it, but I don't get the relavence.

You said that no U.S. company got ANY contracts. Not that they didn't get the biggest.

Okay, so why even bring it up the fact that they didn't get a contract on one particular oil field?

Does that somehow upgrade your incorrect statement to "almost right", or "just kinda wrong"?

It's about as relevent as the entire discussion of oil in a thread about Bradley Manning. Maybe you should ask Dick why he chose to fall back on the usual talking points of the left.

Because the oil field they didn't get the contract on appears to be considered the largest. Size does matter.

I'm really not seeing how it does in this context.

He referred to more than just World War II. I do believe that that was a just war, despite taking issues with some of the specific actions taken by the allies, and with some of their motives.

The military is intended to be under civilian control. Even if public representatives do not make every decision, they are responsible for appointing those who do, and ultimately responsible for the policies that are enacted.

That really is your problem, not mine.

Oil was brought into the discussion by Bock, on Post #508.

Maybe in your country, but in the US, the President is the Commander in Chief. He is the one who makes the appointments.

Not if you explain it to me.

Is the President not a public representative?

I think part of that would depend on what your definition of a public representative is.

Of course he is. Your stupidity is beginning to irritate me.

Are you saying that there should be no state secrets in a democracy, or that democratic States have no business engaging in any activities that would require state secrets?

My stupidity? Dude, you are the one that is off the deep end. The President of the United States is if anything a representative of the US. The US House of Representatives represent the people, the Senate originally represented the states, although after changing how members of the Senate were elected, I'd say they are more representative of the people then they were originally intended.

So Dick, when some questions are asked, it is a good idea for me to know what a foreigners definition of things are so that I have a better idea where they are coming from. You tend to have your own unique definitions for things.

Of course I have to keep in mind what a jackass someone has to be in order to defend a criminal like Bradley Manning.

I've always enjoyed your stupidity. I find it to be very entertaining.

No. As I've explained already, secrets should be permissable where absolutely necessary - details of ongoing operations in a war, for example. However, these should always be released afterwards, and certainly do not encompass all of the things at issue here - killings being covered up for public relations reasons and so forth.

Yes, you have said that. The problem is who you think should be determining what information can be released and when. Which again is the reason you support what a criminal like Bradley Manning has done.

Yes you have. However, as has been pointed out to you over and over you have been unable to come up with a cogent policy of who should decide what is to be revealed and when. Some secrets can still have an impact decades after they were made. Some secrets should never be revealed as they are too damaging.

Let's take an example. The US comes up with a horrible chemical weapon. It's so horrible they never even make it. Under your policies the US would be obligated to publish that secret formula.

The problem with your view is that it is juvenile and unworkable in the real world. The example I just gave is one of many many that could be given. Again, who decides what can and what cannot be released and when?????

Nothing in what I have said has implied that such a "formula" would have to be released. I'm open to different models for deciding what ought to be secret, as long as they realise the principle that the burden is on those desiring secrecy to justify that. Clearly the present situation does not meet such a standard.