Debates
02 May 11
03 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iraq-pm-tells-top-us-military-officer-that-iraqi-troops-are-ready-to-take-over-security/2011/04/22/AFeNvoNE_story.html?tid=obinsite
If that was his intention, he'd do it. As it is, he keeps pushing back withdrawal timetables in Afghanistan and is pressuring Iraq's government to accept permanent deployment of US troops on Iraqi soil.
Afghanistan may take a while longer.
04 May 11
Originally posted by retiariushttp://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2002/me_terrorism_10_16.html
Like your brains?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5374160.stm
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/06/karzai.binladen/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2135473.stm
05 May 11
Originally posted by techsouthDo you really think killing somebody is a success?
The fact is, he gave the order that took a risk and will take criticism even in success.
No matter how much somebody is a risk (alleged risk), there are equals. People in Europe were pretty pissed off with Hitler, for taking himself out and not facing trial.
The (alleged) world police blow up a fecker who everybody wanted to see become accountable for his actions, even those may be being actions of parenthood or indoctrination.
So he's dead. The order to have him taken out was WEAK and FEARFUL, again from the (ALLEGED_) WORLD POLICE.
Obama should be criticised, massively. He gave the order to kill when nothing was happening. That is the weakness, or a displayed weakness of Americans' fear. He did it purely for forth coming elections, which is quite pathetic.
So back to my original question..is killing somebody really a success?
-m.
05 May 11
Originally posted by mikelomThere would be no benefit in giving Bin Laden a trial. It would simply be a wasteful procedure. There is no doubt of the result. It would be expensive and potentially dangerous. There are not too many good things that can be said about Obama, but his understanding that Bin Laden does not need the trial protection that average citizen would good is correct, his understanding that the US decides on the procedure and what to do with his remains is also correct.
Do you really think killing somebody is a success?
No matter how much somebody is a risk (alleged risk), there are equals. People in Europe were pretty pissed off with Hitler, for taking himself out and not facing trial.
The (alleged) world police blow up a fecker who everybody wanted to see become accountable for his actions, even those may be being a ...[text shortened]... ite pathetic.
So back to my original question..is killing somebody really a success?
-m.
This is not a sign of weakness, it is a merely a sign that Bin Laden paid the price for his actions.
05 May 11
Originally posted by quackquackMy apologies. 😀
There would be no benefit in giving Bin Laden a trial. It would simply be a wasteful procedure. There is no doubt of the result. It would be expensive and potentially dangerous. There are not too many good things that can be said about Obama, but his understanding that Bin Laden does not need the trial protection that average citizen would good is cor ...[text shortened]... is not a sign of weakness, it is a merely a sign that Bin Laden paid the price for his actions.
What? 😠
No man deserves a trial, because the outcome is pre-set, and it would be expensive? 😲😕
It would only be potentially dangerous if Laden had been caught alive and trialled in the US.
You talk on behalf of Obama in saying, "Bin Laden does not need the trial protection that average citizen would good is correct", and the US decides upon his way out of this world.
Everybody has a right to trial...... it's in your ruddy amendment. Would you also say, "Oh! He's black, he has no right to trial"?
As for a US decison............ God Bless America...... you'll get hit again if he isn;t buried in his ritualistic way... be warmed.
-m.
05 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackWe wouldn't want anyone to think Bin Laden has in any way undermined the Western way of life and values as he stated he wanted to.
There would be no benefit in giving Bin Laden a trial. It would simply be a wasteful procedure. There is no doubt of the result. It would be expensive and potentially dangerous. There are not too many good things that can be said about Obama, but his understanding that Bin Laden does not need the trial protection that average citizen would good is cor ...[text shortened]... erstanding that the US decides on the procedure and what to do with his remains is also correct.
05 May 11
Originally posted by mikelomIf your goal is to kill someone, then killing him is a success.
Do you really think killing somebody is a success?
No matter how much somebody is a risk (alleged risk), there are equals. People in Europe were pretty pissed off with Hitler, for taking himself out and not facing trial.
The (alleged) world police blow up a fecker who everybody wanted to see become accountable for his actions, even those may be being a ...[text shortened]... ite pathetic.
So back to my original question..is killing somebody really a success?
-m.
Whether you agree with the decision or not I would hope you can at least see some substantially different political considerations between the ramifications of taking Hilter alive in 1945 and the ramifications of taking bin Laden alive in 2011. Besides, taking him alive was not exactly a sure thing at the point where killing him was.
Admittedly, for a typical American sitting in front of their plasm TV, the emotional fortitude required to "hope" bin Laden would be killed and then to be happy when he was killed does not exactly take courage.
But I'll reiterate, I'm not a Obama supporter and won't be voting for him in 2012. Nevertheless, I stand by my assertion that the decision he made to "go get him" took courage. It would have been much easier to say "Let's wait until we have more confirmation of the intel."
If he did it solely for elections or if there is some feint sense of justice in Obama, I can't say. But if you assert you can say for sure, you diminish your own credibility.
06 May 11
Originally posted by techsouthI don't say any of the initials that you propose, with certainty.
If your goal is to kill someone, then killing him is a success.
Whether you agree with the decision or not I would hope you can at least see some substantially different political considerations between the ramifications of taking Hilter alive in 1945 and the ramifications of taking bin Laden alive in 2011. Besides, taking him alive was not exactly a s ...[text shortened]... an't say. But if you assert you can say for sure, you diminish your own credibility.
What I do know is the previous president - to quote, also said, "We're goona smoke him out!"
It's taken 10 years, and more to locate this guy, and I believe this is a lucky strike amongst thousands!
Thousands of innocents, that is.
But that's the American way, I guess. Kill thousands to get a mere single 1 (one)! 😳
-m.
06 May 11
Originally posted by mikelomAre you saying that the US government should not have targeted Osama Bin Laden?
I don't say any of the initials that you propose, with certainty.
What I do know is the previous president - to quote, also said, "We're goona smoke him out!"
It's taken 10 years, and more to locate this guy, and I believe this is a lucky strike amongst thousands!
Thousands of innocents, that is.
But that's the American way, I guess. Kill thousands to get a mere single 1 (one)! 😳
-m.
Troops were sent to capture or kill him. He was not expected to surrender and was expected to resist with lethal force. People at the compound did so resist and OBL refused to surrender. Unless he was summarily executed (for which there is no evidence), the troops did nothing wrong.
Could you please explain to me what, exactly, the US government did wrong in this incident?
06 May 11
Originally posted by no1marauderYes.
Are you saying that the US government should not have targeted Osama Bin Laden?
Troops were sent to capture or kill him. He was not expected to surrender and was expected to resist with lethal force. People at the compound did so resist and OBL refused to surrender. Unless he was summarily executed (for which there is no evidence), the t ...[text shortened]... Could you please explain to me what, exactly, the US government did wrong in this incident?
They targeted one individual, who was a mere leader, with trained prospective replacements. The US Govnt didn't target the AlQ schools. Now there is a bigger threat, not only to the US, but to all areas of Western Leading Countries - thanks for that (even though I don't live there!)
They were sent in to kill Madman Hussein, and got him and what? It was tactful.
The US Govnt has lost the plot in tactful achievement and, believe me, the world isn't looking in admiration. The world is crapping itself as a result of the 'super police'.
Whatever happened to your specialist forces who go in and do things quietly? Hum?
Na., not good enough. US has to be guns and blazes to merit it's disillusioned loss of power in the world.
Target OAL yes, kill him in a missile attack that takes hundreds of lives? NO!! 😠
The troops did no wrong, as they carry out orders. Any troop of any country is the same.
What do you think is going to happen next in good olde USA? Nothing?
Watch this space!
If Europe gets hit - then there will be massive hatred for that one missile, FROM THE USA!
Your govnt isn't exactly getting itself liked much, if it has been at all for the last 15 years!!
-m.
06 May 11
Originally posted by bill718Bill, simply put, you are an idiot... everyone knows by now that Obama just swept up waht Bush left for him. The information was gotten because of Bushes tactics, which Obama would have never gotten, If I remember correctly, he campaigned on shutting down the very operations that provied us with Bin laden,, are you a fool... you're making yourself look like one,,
oops...it seems I hit a nerve here. Pardon me for bringing this subject up, but GW Bush and the entire GOP were very arrogent and nasty in there language concerning the Liberals' inability to "keep America safe" for 8 years. Now, when someone reminds us that is President Obama and the Democrats that delivered Bin Laden, NOT GW Bush and the Republicans, we're ...[text shortened]... on the same team".
Get this straight. We are NOT going to be quiet. Deal with it!! 😏
06 May 11
Originally posted by KostenuikNeeds his armies to fight in Libya now?? Oh that's right, we're not in a war there,, my bad..
I'm not talking about the mess in America but their trails of blood around the globe. It's always been Obama's intentions to leave the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and this is a big step towards those goals.