03 May '11 02:10>
Originally posted by sh76I find such "logic" barbaric.
The Nuremberg condemned were cremated and their ashes spread out over the sea to avoid making shrines of their graves.
The same logic seems to apply here.
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.
Originally posted by retiariushttp://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2002/me_terrorism_10_16.html
Like your brains?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!! 😏
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.