Pres Obama is making an unscheduled address to the nation(crap is about to get real)

[quote name='dmaul1114']It was always a no-win situation IMO.

Fight the wars and do what it takes to get him and diminish Al Qaeda's ability to carryout large-scale attacks--but raise anti-American sentiment in the middle east and help generate a new generation of jihadist in the process with the inevitable bombings of civilians etc.

Do nothing (or less) and thus bolster Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups by showing that they can carry out major attacks with relative impunity.

There's just no easy solution to that kind of situation. No doubt some things could have been done differently to minimize anti-American sentiment--i.e. not invade Iraq, not held enemy combatants indefinitely, not torture them etc. But not taking action in Afghanistan and against Bin Laden/Al Qaeda really wasn't an option IMO.[/QUOTE]

False choice. Intervention bolsters Al-Qaeda; in fact, our previous intervention helped create what became Al-Qaeda. Blowback is very real, and the solution to our intervention has been: intervention. It is a never ending cycle. The correct response is to no longer practice militarism overseas, and when we are attacked we enact the following:

To authorize the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.
Click to expand...
 
Look, take your blame America first nonsense elsewhere. Let's get this discussion to Bin Laden's death, and its implications.

So what affect does this have on 2012? A lot of people are claiming that this will clinch the election for Obama. I certainly think it will help, but I don't think it's going to be enough to single handedly win the election for him. For one thing, Americans have short attention span, and after next week when this finally gets dropped out of the news cycle, we're going to be back to the realization that the economy still sucks, gas is too expensive, and unemployment is too high. While this certainly does allow Obama's supporters to hark back to the hope and change that was promised, if Obama can't follow up with this, it might even leave his supporters even more jaded.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']False choice. Intervention bolsters Al-Qaeda; in fact, our previous intervention helped create what became Al-Qaeda. Blowback is very real, and the solution to our intervention has been: intervention. It is a never ending cycle. The correct response is to no longer practice militarism overseas, and when we are attacked we enact the following:[/QUOTE]

Just have to agree to disagree.

I strongly disagree with much of how we intervened for sure. But I disagree that you can ignore responding militarily to attacks on US soil, US embassies etc.

I do agree we should stop other militaristic interventions around the world though. I don't see it as our place to have invaded Iraq, or to be involved in Libya currently.

But when you have terrorist attack, you have to respond IMO. Though again our response has been horribly misguied IMO. For instance, I think a combination of bombing and diplomacy could have got the Taliban out of Afghanistan and had a new Aghani government rise up that's no less dysfunctional than the one in place now. And of course we never should have been in Iraq.
 
[quote name='spmahn']
So what affect does this have on 2012? A lot of people are claiming that this will clinch the election for Obama. I certainly think it will help, but I don't think it's going to be enough to single handedly win the election for him. For one thing, Americans have short attention span, and after next week when this finally gets dropped out of the news cycle, we're going to be back to the realization that the economy still sucks, gas is too expensive, and unemployment is too high. While this certainly does allow Obama's supporters to hark back to the hope and change that was promised, if Obama can't follow up with this, it might even leave his supporters even more jaded.[/QUOTE]


It doesn't cinch it. It will just help quiet any attacks on his foreign policy and claims that he's not willing to act etc.

But as you note, the election will mainly come down to the economy.

If the stock market stays up and unemployment keeps slowly falling, and gas prices fall by then, he'll most likely win re-election.

If there's another small downturn or even pro-longed stagnation in the recovery, he may lose depending on who the republican nominee is.

If the economy really takes another major dive, then he's done for period.
 
[quote name='Knoell']So what is your idea for a zero casuality clean out of al qaeda and the taliban? The removal of both organizations vastly benefits the security of the US, and primarilly the afghan people.[/QUOTE]
You're assuming they can ever be removed to begin with.

I have no idea for destroying Al Qaida without innocents being killed. It would be a pretty difficult thing to do. You'll somehow take this as justification for doing it the way we have.
 
[quote name='Knoell']

The cost was great, but what cost would we be facing if we left Afghanistan as it was? Do you think bin laden was wrapping things up after 9/11?[/QUOTE]


In other words, we're fightin' 'em there so we don't have to fight 'em here.

Btw, we had a hand it turning Afghanistan into what it was as of 9/11, so if anything it's just our own stupidity coming back to bite us in the ass. It would be like giving a criminal a gun and being surprised when they rob you at gun point.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It doesn't cinch it. It will just help quiet any attacks on his foreign policy and claims that he's not willing to act etc.

But as you note, the election will mainly come down to the economy.

If the stock market stays up and unemployment keeps slowly falling, and gas prices fall by then, he'll most likely win re-election.

If there's another small downturn or even pro-longed stagnation in the recovery, he may lose depending on who the republican nominee is.

If the economy really takes another major dive, then he's done for period.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it won't quiet attacks if this Libya conflict continues. Something along the lines of 'are you going to wait 10 years to get Kadahfi (spelling)?'

The Libyan conflict is driving up oil prices right now, which is hurting the economy. If it's not resolved sooner than later, it'll nosedive the economy again. Not to mention all of the bad mortgages that are still out there (If those were taken off the market it'd really fix the economy).
 
Sure, but having taken out Bin Laden gives him a retort to such critiques about Qaddafi that he didn't have before.

Plus he can pin that on NATO and the UN resolution not given the authority to take out Qaddafi etc., and say that getting Bin Laden shows he'll act when their is justification to take someone out etc.

So it just gives him more leverage in deflecting those kind of attacks.

Gas prices are already projected to start falling again in a month or so, so I don't see that being a huge issue. It's more the overall instability in the middle east that's worrying investor, than it is Libya specifically on their own as they don't ahve a huge chunk of the world oil supply, and hardly any (if any) comes to the US as they mostly export to Europe.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Just have to agree to disagree.

I strongly disagree with much of how we intervened for sure. But I disagree that you can ignore responding militarily to attacks on US soil, US embassies etc.

I do agree we should stop other militaristic interventions around the world though. I don't see it as our place to have invaded Iraq, or to be involved in Libya currently.

But when you have terrorist attack, you have to respond IMO. Though again our response has been horribly misguied IMO. For instance, I think a combination of bombing and diplomacy could have got the Taliban out of Afghanistan and had a new Aghani government rise up that's no less dysfunctional than the one in place now. And of course we never should have been in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

You can't respond to an attack on US soil by a non-government entity with tanks and planes and large numbers of ground troops. I offered a solution to deal with those who attacked us.

A "letter of marque and reprisal" would involve permission to cross an international border to effect a reprisal (take some action against an attack or injury) authorized by an issuing jurisdiction to conduct reprisal operations outside its borders. In plain terms, a small task force to arrest those responsible for their actions - a police action.

Bombing the Taliban would have driven them out? We bombed them as it was. You used softer language to advocate instigating a war against a nation that did not attack us. Using such language may be more palatable to us in America, but it makes no difference to the people who have family members killed in a bombing under the guise of retaliation. Retaliation for something those people had nothing to with.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Sure, but having taken out Bin Laden gives him a retort to such critiques about Qaddafi that he didn't have before.

Plus he can pin that on NATO and the UN resolution not given the authority to take out Qaddafi etc., and say that getting Bin Laden shows he'll act when their is justification to take someone out etc.

So it just gives him more leverage in deflecting those kind of attacks.

Gas prices are already projected to start falling again in a month or so, so I don't see that being a huge issue. It's more the overall instability in the middle east that's worrying investor, than it is Libya specifically on their own as they don't ahve a huge chunk of the world oil supply, and hardly any (if any) comes to the US as they mostly export to Europe.[/QUOTE]

Americans won't care come election time though. They care about the here and now. What that is when election time comes won't be this. While he can use Bin Laden as a talking point, having him dead doesn't help the economy, which will most likely be the key issue then. Doing one thing, while great, doesn't change the fact that he is perceived to be weak on national security, and when election time comes, that perception will still be there, in large part due to the continuing conflict in Libya and his apparent inaction.

Gas prices have gone up on average about a cent a day for roughly 2 months, so to say they'll start falling 'in a month or so' doesn't tell me how much and for how long? We all know how volatile the Middle East is. Whenever something happens over there, whether or not oil is there, prices do shoot up very quickly.

But who knows? Maybe the Seals will take out Qaddafi as well. But I doubt it somehow.
 
I have a hypothetical for you guys:

How would you feel if one day, Iraq demanded the extradition of Cheney/Rumsfeld for war crimes and took covert action without permission of the US government.

*I know, it's one of my wet dreams...LOLZ
 
[quote name='dannyox718']Dear dohdough and knoell,

You both make many very good points and I personally find both of your insights helpful in understanding this whole situation. Thank you for that.

When people argue, it's almost never a case of one side being all right and the other all wrong. Please accept the merits of each other's points and have a cordial debate rather than all this bickering. I believe that you can state your facts and opinions without letting too much of your emotions get wrapped up in between the lines.

But anyway, I am definitely encouraged to find thinkers on this site, and it's the reason I prefer these forums over many others. God bless you both. :)[/QUOTE]

Shut the fuck up donny, you're out of your element!

While assassinating OBL (surely laying the ground work for another nobel peace prize, jesus fuck that makes me mad...) doesn't help the economy TODAY, what it does is lift a bit of that fear that the general population had. So maybe they start to think things aren't so bad and they go see UB at work and buy some stuff. Who knows, if S/11 was the impetus for collapse (or so they'd have us know) perhaps this will be the spur to recovery.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I have a hypothetical for you guys:

How would you feel if one day, Iraq demanded the extradition of Cheney/Rumsfeld for war crimes and took covert action without permission of the US government.

*I know, it's one of my wet dreams...LOLZ[/QUOTE]

Not a fair comparison as Cheney and Rumsfeld are government officials, OBL was not. Now you could make a Saddam comparison I suppose but terrorist leaders are government officials.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']To authorize the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.[/QUOTE]

I thought Privateer was an awesome game too, but this sounds like an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to me.

But hey, I suppose hiring pirates to do the its dirty work would do wonders for the United States' global image.
 
[quote name='Clak']So, who else thinks that if this had happened under Bush's presidency that there would have been no question from the right of whether it was really Bin Laden?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theloo...-sea-a-mistake[/QUOTE]

I think the left would have wanted to see proof. But I don't think it makes much sense to doubt he was actually killed, regardless of who was President. To pretend he was killed then have him come out with some video or interview a few months later would be disastrous for any President.

But let's be clear, I don't think the right doubts the fact that he was killed. I think they consider it 'political correctness' to give bin Laden a Muslim burial.

To be honest, I don't understand how Obama can say bin Laden didn't represent the faith then give him a 'proper Muslim burial'.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I think the left would have wanted to see proof. But I don't think it makes much sense to doubt he was actually killed, regardless of who was President. To pretend he was killed then have him come out with some video or interview a few months later would be disastrous for any President.
[/QUOTE]
There is a 2Pac joke in there somewhere...:rofl:

I really don't think there would have been much of a call for proof from the left really.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']I thought Privateer was an awesome game too, but this sounds like an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to me.

But hey, I suppose hiring pirates to do the its dirty work would do wonders for the United States' global image.[/QUOTE]

Article 1, Section 8:

... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal ...
Click to expand...
So it's clearly constitutional. Now, ideally, there would be diplomacy work undertaken with the country the aggressors were located in before this would need to take place, so even this could be avoided (as dohdough pointed out, it would be a disaster to unilaterally run around the world as though we owned it). But even so, this course of action would be a vast improvement over simply invading nations at will, bombing countries that don't toe the line for us, or assassinating individuals without putting them on trial.

It's also cute for you to attempt to question the constitutionality of an action when you felt the sense of the Senate vote in March was sufficient for starting a war in Libya.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I've seen Scheuer on the tv a lot lately. I think I remember him saying that Osama needed to execute an attack on Americans in order to get the US government to enact the policies Scheuer wants.[/QUOTE]

Scheuer's hawkish, but he's still non-interventionist; similar to Pat Buchanan. Also like Buchanan, he tends to speak from an analyst's point of view, rather than from his own personal perspective. His personal perspective is more pronounced at non-intervention.com.

EDIT: By the way, why hasn't anyone brought up that we assassinated someone without putting them on trial, let alone bringing formal charges against them? dohdough touched on this earlier, I'm taking it a step further.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Article 1, Section 8: [. . .]

So it's clearly constitutional.[/QUOTE]

Article I, section 8 is the enumerated powers of Congress. So it's constitutional for Congress to do it, but not to delegate it to the executive branch. Which is what that bill, you know, does. By your logic, Congress could pass a statute allowing the President to declare war.

And I still can't abide the idea that running around the world hiring local thugs to enforce our foreign policy is how the United States should behave, even if it is politically sensitive about it.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']Article I, section 8 is the enumerated powers of Congress. So it's constitutional for Congress to do it, but not to delegate it to the executive branch. Which is what that bill, you know, does. By your logic, Congress could pass a statute allowing the President to declare war.

And I still can't abide the idea that running around the world hiring local thugs to enforce our foreign policy is how the United States should behave, even if it is politically sensitive about it.[/QUOTE]

The text I offered is the exact text of a bill offered after September 11, 2001, as an alternative to the outright warmongering that was going on at the time. There also wasn't even an official investigation into who was behind 9/11 at that time, so clear action under that guise was elusive.

Even in this thread, I offered it as an alternative to warmongering, and in later posts referenced only the act of passing a letter, not the exact text from the 2001 bill. Also cute that you keep referencing thugs, when you could just as easily hire local police force. Arresting aggressors not associated with a country = bad foreign policy, bombing countries that are no threat to our national security = good foreign policy. Good job.

But really, I don't know why you're bothering. You were trolling for the war in Libya, did something change?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']The text I offered is the exact text of a bill offered after September 11, 2001, as an alternative to the outright warmongering that was going on at the time. There also wasn't even an official investigation into who was behind 9/11 at that time, so clear action under that guise was elusive.[/QUOTE]

You quoted the bill summary. Here's the text:

[quote name='H. R. 3076 (2001)']SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) That the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 upon the United States were acts of air piracy contrary to the law of nations.

(2) That the terrorist attacks were acts of war perpetrated by enemy belligerents to destroy the sovereign independence of the United States of America contrary to the law of nations.

(3) That the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks were actively aided and abetted by a conspiracy involving one Osama bin Laden and others known and unknown, either knowingly and actively affiliated with a terrorist organization known as al Qaeda or knowingly and actively conspiring with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, both of whom are dedicated to the destruction of the United States of America as a sovereign and independent nation.

(4) That the al Qaeda conspiracy is a continuing one among Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and others known and unknown with plans to commit additional acts of air piracy and other similar acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.

(5) That the act of war committed on September 11, 2001, by the al Qaeda conspirators, and the other acts of war planned by the al Qaeda conspirators, are contrary to the law of nations.

(6) That under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress has the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal to punish, deter, and prevent the piratical aggressions and depredations and other acts of war of the al Qaeda conspirators.

SEC. 3. AUTHORITY OF PRESIDENT.

(a) The President of the United States is authorized and requested to commission, under officially issued letters of marque and reprisal, so many of privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require, with suitable instructions to the leaders thereof, to employ all means reasonably necessary to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001, and for any planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations or other acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.

(b) The President of the United States is authorized to place a money bounty, drawn in his discretion from the $40,000,000,000 appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, under the authority of any letter of marque or reprisal issued under this Act.

(c) No letter of marque and reprisal shall be issued by the President without requiring the posting of a security bond in such amount as the President shall determine is sufficient to ensure that the letter be executed according to the terms and conditions thereof.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Even in this thread, I offered it as an alternative to warmongering, and in later posts referenced only the act of passing a letter, not the exact text from the 2001 bill. Also cute that you keep referencing thugs, when you could just as easily hire local police force.[/QUOTE]

I just tend to think thugs are the kind of people motivated by large cash bounties. Though I fail to see how using foreign police changes anything. We'd still be running around the world paying people to become agents of our government and effect our policy. With guns.

[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']But really, I don't know why you're bothering. You were trolling for the war in Libya, did something change?[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, you're right. Because I thought one military action was legal, I therefore must think all unrelated quasi-military actions are legal. How silly of me.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']I just tend to think thugs are the kind of people motivated by large cash bounties. Though I fail to see how using foreign police changes anything. We'd still be running around the world paying people to become agents of our government and effect our policy. With guns.[/QUOTE]

Scale of escalation:

Diplomacy - asking a foreign body to capture someone and bring them to trial, either in their country our the US. With force (you used guns, I'll be more pacifist and simply offer force. How do you arrest people, with contracts of consent?). This is clearly the best choice available.

Letter of Marque and Reprisal - less diplomatic, but if talks with said nation fall through the cracks or if the country is unwilling to apprehend the alleged criminals, this is certainly preferable to doing this in secret. It's also in standing with our legal system. Conceivably, trained pros could be hired for this. Nothing would preclude us from sending a trained CIA or other team under such an action.

CIA or other undercover government directive - at best, could be equated with Letter of Marque and Reprisal. Extremely damaging at worst (I'm referencing dohdough's remarks w/r/t Bush/Cheney again. Hope you don't mind, dohdough).

Declaration of war - misguided to declare a war on a small group of people unaffiliated with a country, let alone a tactic. Technically constitutional, but not moral in the least.

What US policy has been - outright disaster.

I'm sorry, you're right. Because I thought one military action was legal, I therefore must think all unrelated quasi-military actions are legal. How silly of me.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you have a bug in your pants over something positioned fairly low on a scale of escalation (that could even be pre-empted by diplomatic activity) when you're cool with bombing a country that is no threat to our national security.

I've offered my take on what we should do in response to an attack on our country by a non-government entity. My first preference is diplomacy and rule of law, with Letters my next choice and undercover CIA-type activity as last resort. Feel free to offer your own.
 
I understand that you think issuing letters of marque are a sensible intermediary step in escalating conflict against a non-state actor. It's not. The entire point of such letters is to simply pay private parties to cross borders in order to prosecute armed conflict so that the military doesn't have to. At best, it's sending non-state actors to fight non-state actors. At worst, it's tantamount to endowing mercenaries with the capacity to prosecute a war in the name of the United States. And in either case, I can't imagine anyone is going to care that these particular commandos aren't wearing uniforms with mirrored US flags on the shoulder.

And that's assuming we get past the fact that Paul's bill is unconstitutional.

[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Not sure why you have a bug in your pants over something positioned fairly low on a scale of escalation (that could even be pre-empted by diplomatic activity) when you're cool with bombing a country that is no threat to our national security.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure why you think an argument that the President has the legal authority to do something is the same as an argument that he should do it. In any event, that's not the topic at hand.

[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']I've offered my take on what we should do in response to an attack on our country by a non-government entity. My first preference is diplomacy and rule of law, with Letters my next choice and undercover CIA-type activity as last resort. Feel free to offer your own.[/QUOTE]

I think I'd start with one that doesn't incorporate relics of 19th Century maritime law.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']I understand that you think issuing letters of marque are a sensible intermediary step in escalating conflict against a non-state actor.[/QUOTE]

Provided diplomacy fails. Diplomacy encompasses a vast array of options that are too numerous to list.

It's not. The entire point of such letters is to simply pay private parties to cross borders in order to prosecute armed conflict so that the military doesn't have to. At best, it's sending non-state actors to fight non-state actors. At worst, it's tantamount to endowing mercenaries with the capacity to prosecute a war in the name of the United States.
Click to expand...
Historically, anyone applying to carry out the action would produce a bond promising adherence to national and international laws, treaties, and customs. A Letter calling for action on land would thus take on a different form than one commissioned for international waters. I grant that the possibility exists that the group carrying out the action could overstep its bounds, either by way of the written agreement or violation of national or international law. Such abuses should be opposed and the perpetrators brought to justice.

And in either case, I can't imagine anyone is going to care that these particular commandos aren't wearing uniforms with mirrored US flags on the shoulder.
Click to expand...
Certainly, which is yet another point in diplomacy's column.

And that's assuming we get past the fact that Paul's bill is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
I earlier mistook the summary of the bill as being its full text; if that were the complete scope of the bill, I would likely agree. However, after reading in its entirety, the bill is textbook constitutional form. Congress outlines the scope and purpose of the action described in authorizing Letters, and the president is tasked with signing the Letter and deciding who carries out the operation. Congress abdicating its responsibility to declare war to the president in a resolution would be unconstitutional. The comparison between War and a Letter is that the president, as commander-in-chief, directs troops once appropriate action has been taken by Congress.

I'm not sure why you think an argument that the President has the legal authority to do something is the same as an argument that he should do it. In any event, that's not the topic at hand.
Click to expand...
I do not. I am questioning why you feel an unconstitutional act of war is acceptable under US law, while a Letter of Marque and Reprisal is not.

I think I'd start with one that doesn't incorporate relics of 19th Century maritime law.
Click to expand...
On this we are in agreement, provided that you are referring to diplomatic actions.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Did we or did we not go into Iraq because of misleading information based on Al Qaeda? Did we or did we not train AND arm them with our tax dollars? Do/Did we or do/did we not install AND support AND ARM dictators in that area? What am I lying about? Absolutely nothing.

Billions for millions rhymes better than 100's of 1000's. If you're going to make a little word play the backbone of your argument, keep on going, but it still doesn't change the fact that we are mostly and directly responsible for the current situation in the MidEast.

The only thing you're concerned is about the lives of US citizens and not the ones killed by US citizens before 9/11. A lot more than 5000 people died because of the US since we've been fucking around in the desert. This did not start when 20 people flew planes into buildings no matter how many times you say it or how loudly you protest.


Whitey Bulger is probably living across the street from the Queen of England. Somebody call the FBI and raid his ass.[/QUOTE]

.......What the hell? Did you really just try and flip every point as if it was your own? You most certainly directly said that the US has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents in afghanistan (and iraq). That was not word play. You lied here.
[quote name='dohdough']
Everyone talks about bringing Bin Laden to justice and that he was responsible for the thousands of innocent deaths, but what about the hundreds of thousands that we killed after that as well as the tens of thousands we killed before it?
[/QUOTE]

We went into iraq because of misleading information on weapons of mass destruction. A minor few people spoke of iraq harboring al qaeda and noone said bin laden was there, which again you DIRECTLY stated. You lied here.

[quote name='dohdough']edit: And let's not forget that we went into Iraq because of Bin Laden.[/quote]

We made a mistake in afghanistan. Now that mistake is biting us in the ass, and you determine that "haha, thats what we get" is a good enough solution.

Also where is your venom for the russians continuing to provide weapons in that area against us TODAY?

As for your whole queen of england deal.....it just doesn't make sense. Joke or not, explain to me how any of those things does not lead you to believe that pakistan is a) incapable of tracking al qaeda anywhere in its own country, or b) particular elements of the pakistani government knew of bin ladens where abouts and decided to take a hands off approach.
 
[quote name='Knoell'].......What the hell? Did you really just try and flip every point as if it was your own? You most certainly directly said that the US has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents in afghanistan (and iraq). That was not word play. You lied here.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying that the AP is not a reliable source and those people would've killed each other if we weren't there? Whether we pulled the trigger or not, the blood is still on our hands.

We went into iraq because of misleading information on weapons of mass destruction. A minor few people spoke of iraq harboring al qaeda and noone said bin laden was there, which again you DIRECTLY stated. You lied here.
Click to expand...
Al Qaeda was the intro, the WMD's were the hook. We all knew this shit was fishy from the beginning and I bet you didn't say shit then.

We made a mistake in afghanistan. Now that mistake is biting us in the ass, and you determine that "haha, thats what we get" is a good enough solution.
Click to expand...
Personal responsibility is a cornerstone of your idealogy, but I'm not surprised that it's all bullshit anyways. And yes, we will be paying for Afghanistan and Iraq for decades to come in human lives. Some of that blood will be ours. You either accept that we created these problems and try to fix them or you decide that we're completely innocent of any wrong doing and stick your thumb up your ass and hope for the best. Looks like you'd rather stick your thumb up your ass.

Throwing my hands up and saying "that's what we get" isn't what I'm doing either, but we can't exactly address the problem if you keep throwing your hands in the air saying that we're the victims with no culpability.

You can't even get to step 1 and admit that we have a problem.

Also where is your venom for the russians continuing to provide weapons in that area against us TODAY?
Click to expand...
Lolz, simple economics. AK-47's are cheaper and easier to maintain than M-4's. Not to mention that the US has been in the arm-dealing business longer than the USSR existed.

As for your whole queen of england deal.....it just doesn't make sense. Joke or not, explain to me how any of those things does not lead you to believe that pakistan is a) incapable of tracking al qaeda anywhere in its own country, or b) particular elements of the pakistani government knew of bin ladens where abouts and decided to take a hands off approach.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that they have the wealth and infrastructure to set up surveilence like England? You have know fucking clue about anything.

tl:dr: Yeah, I lied about everything:roll:
 
Knoell:
Were you by chance at Obama's Addess with Rep, "you lie" Wilson?
We went into iraq because of misleading information on weapons of mass destruction. A minor few people spoke of iraq harboring al qaeda and noone said bin laden was there, which again you DIRECTLY stated. You lied here.
Click to expand...
Sorry buddy, but are members of the Bush admin, "a minor few people"??? They regurgitated that lie over and over again. Here's something for starters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations#Cheney.27s_claims


And a number of points that you seem strangely ignorant of.
Per int'l law, the occupying power is responsible for providing security for the population it OCCUPIES and is therefore also responsible for civilian deaths.

And you need to familiarize yourself with the CIA term "blowback." 9/11 was blowback for our involvement in Afghanistan. Per President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, we wanted the USSR to have their own Vietnam and create an "Afghan trap." So what did we do? Use Afghansitan as our chessboard in a a game with the USSR and Afghan were our pieces. We armed religious zealots and trained them to wage an terror campaign which included bombing public places including schools which taught girls. We called them freedom fighters. The gov't then called the Soviets in for assistance and they ended up staying. We created bin Laden and got blowback. Read a little history before you throw all your uninformed assumptions out there likely influenced by Rambo and Michael Bay movies.

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

AFGHANISTAN 1979-1992 America's Jihad
http://killinghope.org/bblum6/afghan.htm

And here are more chapters from his expertly researched book:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/KillingHope_page.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/shep-smi...act-that-the-bin-laden-operation-was-illegal/

Shep Smith is on your side FtA.

It's really disappoint to hear how the WH lied about the circumstances of the assassination. They acted like he was armed and firing back and used his wife as a human shield. Then they had to clarify that not only was he not armed but he didn't use the woman (who was not his wife) as a human shield.

[quote name='joeboosauce']Sorry buddy, but are members of the Bush admin, "a minor few people"??? They regurgitated that lie over and over again. Here's something for starters:[/QUOTE]

Facts aren't allowed to enter their bubble. I don't even know why you bother.
 
All the news around this seems to be getting interesting. Clarifying the details of the actual assault, the follow-up... Hm..
 
[quote name='UncleBob']All the news around this seems to be getting interesting. Clarifying the details of the actual assault, the follow-up... Hm..[/QUOTE]
That's putting it lightly.
 
I don't understand this obsession for the photos to be released. If you're inclined to believe this is all a government cover-up (not saying it is, not saying it isn't), then would it be too far fetched to believe that any photos taken could be faked?

Would any good come from releasing such photos?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I don't understand this obsession for the photos to be released. If you're inclined to believe this is all a government cover-up (not saying it is, not saying it isn't), then would it be too far fetched to believe that any photos taken could be faked?

Would any good come from releasing such photos?[/QUOTE]

Violent death videos/pics intrigue people. I don't think it's much more than that.
 
And now we enter that diabolical void of conspiracy vs reality vs morbid curiosity vs martyrdom vs etc...
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']No photo, good decision IMO.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. It wouldn't shut up the conspiracy theorists, and would likely offend many and maybe rile up some of his supporters more. Just no reason to release it.
 
I want to see it. I watched thousands of americans die on live television in my High School social studies class, so the least they could do is release a photo of his dead body. Closure: I wants it!

This photo can't be any worse than the concentration camp photos we saw in middle school and I'm certain it's a lot less worse than watching people jump from the World Trade Center which I also watched live during school.
 
They said it will ultimately be released, probably when things die down or maybe you'll see it in some documentary in 20 years. But right now it's not really necessary, and while I doubt it would cause big problems, if any, it's better to play it safe than to release a photo that doesn't really do anything for you, compared to what it could do against you.

Who's scared of conspiracy theories, anyways?
 
As much as I hate to give any validity to information heard on right wing radio...
How much is left of al-Qaeda anyways? There are some who believe that the actual organization is down to maybe 50-100 people and that there are many splinter groups that make up maybe another 600-700 hardcore terrorists that want to fuck shit up. Others of course think there are hundreds of thousands of Muslims that are nuts and want to blow up anything not adherring to Shaira law.

I'm more inclined to believe that we're down to enough hardcore terrorists to maybe fill a medium sized apartment complex and that's what makes them so dangerous. They're not centrally located and they're looseknit at best. I'd also think that it's a safe assumption that we've taken care of 75% of the people that are really into the whole deal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Agreed. It wouldn't shut up the conspiracy theorists, and would likely offend many and maybe rile up some of his supporters more. Just no reason to release it.[/QUOTE]

Because of an excellent campaign to demonize the term "conspiracy theorist", I don't think people really understand what they are saying when they lob it around. (I think they may have watched the Mel Gibson movie Conspiracy Theory way too much.)

The U.S. government has historically been quick to deceive when it comes to wartime photos, as evidenced in the cover-up of Abu Ghraib in 2004, and the government’s efforts to suppress photograph$s published by Rolling Stone in March of U.S. soldiers standing over the mutilated bodies of unarmed civilians. And before people label me and others who simply question as "conspiracy theorists," need I remind you of the conspiracy to push the nation to war against Iraq with WMD/AQ lies? All for the interests of the oil companies… I would think that critical thinking skills might have gone up after that. Did people forget this ALREADY from only 2 weeks ago???

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq
http://www$.independe$nt.co.uk/n$ews/uk/pol$itics/secr$et-memos-e$xpose-link$-between-o$il-firms-a$nd-invasio$n-of-iraq-$2269610.ht$ml

Our gov't has a HISTORY of lying to the public and creating bogeymen to push through agendas. Maybe we shouldn't be so pliant and complacent. Then again that is the easier thing to do. There are such things as conspiracy fact (Iran-Contra revealed a shadow gov't). I suggest folks look up the definition of conspiracy in a dictionary.
 
You're upset because we used the term loosely, so for that I apologize.

We very well know what the strict definition is, but just like so many others (as you said), we like to toss it around when talking about current events involving irrational arguments.
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']Knoell:
Were you by chance at Obama's Addess with Rep, "you lie" Wilson?
Sorry buddy, but are members of the Bush admin, "a minor few people"??? They regurgitated that lie over and over again. Here's something for starters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations#Cheney.27s_claims


And a number of points that you seem strangely ignorant of.
Per int'l law, the occupying power is responsible for providing security for the population it OCCUPIES and is therefore also responsible for civilian deaths.

And you need to familiarize yourself with the CIA term "blowback." 9/11 was blowback for our involvement in Afghanistan. Per President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, we wanted the USSR to have their own Vietnam and create an "Afghan trap." So what did we do? Use Afghansitan as our chessboard in a a game with the USSR and Afghan were our pieces. We armed religious zealots and trained them to wage an terror campaign which included bombing public places including schools which taught girls. We called them freedom fighters. The gov't then called the Soviets in for assistance and they ended up staying. We created bin Laden and got blowback. Read a little history before you throw all your uninformed assumptions out there likely influenced by Rambo and Michael Bay movies.

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

AFGHANISTAN 1979-1992 America's Jihad
http://killinghope.org/bblum6/afghan.htm

And here are more chapters from his expertly researched book:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/KillingHope_page.html[/QUOTE]


See now you are being ignorant of a few things.

1) Like I said before we try very hard to protect the civilian populations of both countries (at the cost of our soldiers lives) and if we could prevent all of them from killing each other in afghanistan we would. Dohdough seems to believe that our forces are murdering hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians. (He has since fallen back to the point I said I wouild accept at the very beginning of all this. Quoted below.) So do not try to devolve my argument iinto a "it ain't our problem thing".

[quote name='Knoell']
We did not kill 100,000s of thousands of civilians. If you want to clarify that us being there forced the civilians to start killing each other, I might let you slide. But DO NOT paraphrase a point that must be spelled out. This is why people are going around saying US forces are killing 100,000s of thousands of civilians. It is simply in no way true. Could we have stopped civilians from killing each other we would have. Better to leave the tyrants to their own killing though right? :roll:
[/QUOTE]


2) You again completely miss my argument. I was not arguing that we were not hunting al qaida in iraq. I was disputiing dohdoughs announcement that we went to iraq to find bin laden. Quoted below.

[quote name='dohdough']edit: And let's not forget that we went into Iraq because of Bin Laden.[/Quote]

3) Thirdly, when have I denied that there was blow back? I have said we made a mistake in afghanistan.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Knoell, do you concede you were wrong about 'a minor few people'?

[/QUOTE]

The main reason we went into iraq was because our government insisted that iraq was actively working against us through the development of wmds, and al qaida. We went into iraq to take iraqs government down. A secondary objective was to locate al qaida targets taking refuge in the country. Regardless of whether either was true or not, we were there for iraqs government. They were the threat cheney was highlighting in the link, and they were the threat we went there to eliminate.

Poor choice of words? Sure, you got me. I did not mean minor as in low level officials. I meant minor as in it was secondary rather than primary, an incentive to go in if you will. If you remember I was discussing whether or not we went there to get bin laden.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's not what you said. You said the number of people who did it were 'few', and their position was 'minor'. It wasn't a poor choice of words, it was just a flat out lie.
 
[quote name='IRHari']That's not what you said. You said the number of people who did it were 'few', and their position was 'minor'. It wasn't a poor choice of words, it was just a flat out lie.[/QUOTE]

I cleared up for you what I meant. Sorry that isn't good enough for you. It really is so curious how you seem so intent on attacking me for that, yet you were oddly mute when dohdough was slandering our military. Noone attempted to correct him there. But you got me man, you proved that I said something contrary to what you, me and everyone else in this forum believes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top