Does Guantanamo Bay serve any strategic purpose?

[89Hen]

"End of"

Or was that never a period in our country's history?

Outside of the land that is now the lower 48, no. If the US were true imperialists, we'd have a LOT more territories than the handful we have.

[YoUDeeMan]

Since Congress blocked the transfer of Guantanamo detainees in 2010... he doesn't really have much of an option.

awww

poor lil Obama being picked on by bug bad Congress AGAIN? say it isn't so

seeing since so many of those murder monkeys we DID release jumped right back into the murder monkey rotation I'd say the big bad Congress is on the right side of that particular argument

if only the warmongering Bushitler McCheneyburton had just killed them instead of keeping them alive for torture.....

Poor jellybelly. It is almost unfair...every time he posts, he gets skewered.

[AZGrizFan]

Nothing.




Yet.

So...yes?

So, just because we haven't YET suffered any negative strategic impact from giving back the Panama Canal you're ok with the decision because it "signals the end of American imperialism"?

The first time we need to immediately have a military presence off the coast of some foreign country (cough CUBA cough) and the ONLY available forces/ships are in the OTHER ocean and have to spend 2 weeks traversing around the horn, I'll try not to say I told you so.

[Grizalltheway]

"End of"

Or was that never a period in our country's history?

Outside of the land that is now the lower 48, no. If the US were true imperialists, we'd have a LOT more territories than the handful we have.

Well to be fair that is still a shit ton of land.

[89Hen]

Outside of the land that is now the lower 48, no. If the US were true imperialists, we'd have a LOT more territories than the handful we have.

Well to be fair that is still a shit ton of land.

The lower 48 yes, but that was LONG before the US gave the PC back to Panama.

[DSUrocks07]

So...yes?

So, just because we haven't YET suffered any negative strategic impact from giving back the Panama Canal you're ok with the decision because it "signals the end of American imperialism"?

The first time we need to immediately have a military presence off the coast of some foreign country (cough CUBA cough) and the ONLY available forces/ships are in the OTHER ocean and have to spend 2 weeks traversing around the horn, I'll try not to say I told you so.

If we are in EVER a situation where the US military had all of their available forces on ONE side of the globe, the Secretary of Defense needs to be canned and deservedly so.

That's just piss poor planning.

Then again this is the United States government were talking about, the bellwether of piss poor tactical planning.

[Ibanez]

So...yes?

So, just because we haven't YET suffered any negative strategic impact from giving back the Panama Canal you're ok with the decision because it "signals the end of American imperialism"?

The first time we need to immediately have a military presence off the coast of some foreign country (cough CUBA cough) and the ONLY available forces/ships are in the OTHER ocean and have to spend 2 weeks traversing around the horn, I'll try not to say I told you so.

Don't worry, Tom. We've kept a few guys stateside as well as a ship or two.

[AZGrizFan]

So, just because we haven't YET suffered any negative strategic impact from giving back the Panama Canal you're ok with the decision because it "signals the end of American imperialism"?

The first time we need to immediately have a military presence off the coast of some foreign country (cough CUBA cough) and the ONLY available forces/ships are in the OTHER ocean and have to spend 2 weeks traversing around the horn, I'll try not to say I told you so.

Don't worry, Tom. We've kept a few guys stateside as well as a ship or two.

Mmmm Hmmm.....

[Ibanez]

Don't worry, Tom. We've kept a few guys stateside as well as a ship or two.

Mmmm Hmmm.....

Look at that...we're building more ships.

[AZGrizFan]

Mmmm Hmmm.....

Look at that...we're building more ships.

Mmmmmm Hmmmm......

[Grizalltheway]

What exactly is your point, analjelly? That we need 500 ships and 2 million soldiers to take on Cuba?

[CAA Flagship]

What exactly is your point, analjelly? That we need 500 ships and 2 million soldiers to take on Cuba?

It's an island. We have to surround it rather than hit it from one side.

[Ibanez]

Look at that...we're building more ships.

Mmmmmm Hmmmm......

Do you want to get into a technology/modernization discussion?

[Bronco]

We really do have a POS president


Obama Admin: Released Gitmo Detainees Have Killed Americans

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNoCuWXMn8A[/youtube]

[AZGrizFan]

So, just because we haven't YET suffered any negative strategic impact from giving back the Panama Canal you're ok with the decision because it "signals the end of American imperialism"?

The first time we need to immediately have a military presence off the coast of some foreign country (cough CUBA cough) and the ONLY available forces/ships are in the OTHER ocean and have to spend 2 weeks traversing around the horn, I'll try not to say I told you so.

If we are in EVER a situation where the US military had all of their available forces on ONE side of the globe, the Secretary of Defense needs to be canned and deservedly so.

That's just piss poor planning.

Then again this is the United States government were talking about, the bellwether of piss poor tactical planning.

My point exactly. The SAME government that gave away the fucking Panama Canal!!!!

[AZGrizFan]

Mmmmmm Hmmmm......

Do you want to get into a technology/modernization discussion?

Well unless they can clone those motherfuckers or have developed "beam me up" capability all the technology in the world ain't gonna get ships any faster to the desired spot if they're on the wrong side of the canal.

[Ibanez]

Do you want to get into a technology/modernization discussion?

Well unless they can clone those motherfuckers or have developed "beam me up" capability all the technology in the world ain't gonna get ships any faster to the desired spot if they're on the wrong side of the canal.

We have the world covered. Trust me.

[CAA Flagship]

Do you want to get into a technology/modernization discussion?

Well unless they can clone those motherfuckers or have developed "beam me up" capability all the technology in the world ain't gonna get ships any faster to the desired spot if they're on the wrong side of the canal.

How did this discussion turn to anal sex?

[andy7171]

What exactly is your point, analjelly? That we need 500 ships and 2 million soldiers to take on Cuba?

It's an island. We have to surround it rather than hit it from one side.

Or tip that fucker over!!!

[JohnStOnge]

How's the fishing there?

[CAA Flagship]

How's the fishing there?

Pretty good, but the fish speak Cuban.

[AZGrizFan]

Well unless they can clone those motherfuckers or have developed "beam me up" capability all the technology in the world ain't gonna get ships any faster to the desired spot if they're on the wrong side of the canal.

We have the world covered. Trust me.

OK. Sure. What are you, the fucking Secretary of Defense?

[DSUrocks07]

We have the world covered. Trust me.

OK. Sure. What are you, the **** Secretary of Defense?

Are you?

[DSUrocks07]

What exactly is your point, analjelly? That we need 500 ships and 2 million soldiers to take on Cuba?

No silly, clearly its that the 200 ships and the 700,000 troops along with complete ownership of the Panama Canal are the difference between winning and losing this inevitable war with Cuba.

Hey maybe we should invade Egypt and seize control of the Suez Canal while we're at it.

Hopefully we never lose control of the Bering Strait...gotta keep an eye on those Russkies too you know

[Ibanez]

We have the world covered. Trust me.

OK. Sure. What are you, the fucking Secretary of Defense?

No more than you but check your PMs.