How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Feelings
 Obama   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ]
 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Alwye   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Obama (Superman)

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


125 posted 03-29-2011 08:05 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I think you know that that last statement is wrong Mike

Exactly the opposite. I think the statement is spot on.

founding purpose—maintaining international peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights. - MOONBEAM

  In many ways, it closer to Student Government in High School or College than a nation with the power to levy taxes. - BOB K

I think Bob's assessment is closer to the truth, although I've never seen a high school student government with such an expensive clubhouse.

The assertion that the UN could maintain world peace and security begs the question of how? With paperwork? Passing resolutions? Shaking fingers in "no-no" gestures? Advance human rights? Let's ask Darfur how that's going.

The UN has done well at giving humanitarian aid in distressed situations and I applaud them for that. Other than that they are UN-productive and UN-necessary.

Want to make it the United State's fault that the UN is what it is? Go ahead....we're used to it

btw..don't hold your breath waiting for China to see the error of it's ways and repent. That's about as realistic as the rest....
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


126 posted 03-29-2011 08:17 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

We have a UN that talks and does nothing ...

I think you know that that last statement is wrong Mike

Exactly the opposite. I think the statement is spot on."


and then:

"The UN has done well at giving humanitarian aid in distressed situations and I applaud them for that."

A contradiction in the space of 2 posts?

Also a list here:
http://www.un.org/aboutun/achieve.htm

which makes your "does nothing" contention look, er, inaccurate.


......


"founding purpose" maintaining international peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights. - MOONBEAM"

No, not me, Wikipedia actually, as acknowledged previously.

......

Certainly not the US's "fault", but the US has the position and strength to make things better if it chooses. It would just take that vision that your Founding Fathers had, and which seems to be in short supply right now.

......

China will change of course, just as your country and mine changed, you just have to take a longer view Mike.  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


127 posted 03-29-2011 09:01 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I just posted an addendum here, commenting on Mike's Obama post in the Alley.  It is also largely relevant to this thread.  I'm assuming that you deleted it not because it infringes the rules on "personal attacks" but because it was answering issues raised in the Alley, and you have a problem with that?

Am I not allowed to comment on any Alley post in other places in PiP?

Your posting privileges in the Alley were suspended, MB, because you were commenting on posters, not posts, and being more than a little snarky about it. As I said elsewhere, it appeared you were intentionally trolling for reactions.

Allowing you to move the Alley outside the Alley sort of defeats the purpose of not letting you into the Alley, don't you think? We'd be right back to where we were in the past, with my only options being to continue editing your posts when you go over the line or to ban you from the entire site.

If you want to participate in these discussions you'll just have to wait until your current suspension is lifted at the end of the month. That's all covered, of course, in the link above. When and if you do rejoin the Alley conversations you will, of course, be expected to abide by our rules.

And, no, I don't send out an email every time someone breaks the rules, MB. I do, however, generally answer emails if they can't figure it out on their own?


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


128 posted 03-29-2011 12:20 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You got me, Ron. I'm guilty of not being more careful and specific in my assessment.

The UN serves well as an organization such as the Red Cross. If that's the definition they wish to accept, fine...it's not, though, is it?
I doubt the Red Cross has a headquarters as opulent as the UN building.

As a humanitarian organization, it is fine. As an organization to set and  enforce rules to maintain peace and security and protect human rights..it is not....regardless what Wikipedia says.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


129 posted 03-29-2011 05:11 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Thanks for explaining your thinking Ron.  Suspended from the Alley means not even discussing Alley posts in other forums within the rules of those forums.  Fair enough.  That wasn't entirely clear from the "Sticky", but it's clear now, and I'll abide by it.

.........

Well that's ok Mike, at least you admit it does some good.  I disagree on the degree, but then we can agree to disagree I guess.

Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


130 posted 03-29-2011 06:20 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


The UN will continue to be largely ineffective unless they dump the inane veto rule and 'Permanent Member' status; it should be one nation, one vote - no special treatment or elitist ideas.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


131 posted 03-29-2011 06:43 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

That wouldn't work, either.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


132 posted 03-30-2011 03:14 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:

The assertion that the UN could maintain world peace and security begs the question of how? With paperwork? Passing resolutions? Shaking fingers in "no-no" gestures? Advance human rights? Let's ask Darfur how that's going.



     Fair question, Mike.

     The answer is one that I sometimes give to people who ask me how they’re going to manage to turn their lives around.  “Hopefully, it will start off shakily and get better from there.  Maybe you’ll start off gangbusters, but most people start off shakily.”

     One thing the United Nations does do is encourage people to talk.  Frequently that means shout at each other, which is what a lot of do when they start off not know how to talk.  And since we’re talking about nations and problems that have often lasted for hundreds and even thousands of years, and most people can’t even get a notion of problem solving that gets from one paycheck to the next, we’re really at the beginning of the process, aren’t we?

     Mostly, I think it’s important that we keep feeding the process and staying with it.  We’re basically apes with both pretentions and attitude, so we’ve been know at have tantrums when we don’t get what we demand right now, and when we even imagine that there are others around who may not want to give us what we want yesterday.  What do they know, anyway?

     I appologize for not having solved Darfur today.  Yesterday, when I was going through the drive-through at Micky-D’s place, though, after the 13 year old manning the microphone asked me if I wanted to supersize it (I looked at my belly, and I thought, no, probably not) she asked me if I wanted anything else.  When I asked her if they had any world peace on the menu, she laughed and told me I probably couldn’t afford it.

     I will probably have to have a long talk one day with that girl.

     Can’t afford for it not to be on the menu.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


133 posted 03-30-2011 04:09 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     More requests for references, Mike?  Taliban offer to surrender Bin Ladin to Third Party:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv5AKw6gwXg

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/24/september11.usa2

http://www.infowars.com/released-state-department-documents-mention-‘failed-pipeline-negotiations’-with-the-taliban-right-before-911/

(excerpts below)

A Pakistani official told the U.S. that “Pakistan ‘will always support the Taliban’”. This “policy cannot change, he continued; it would prompt rebellion across the Northwest Frontier Provinces, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and indeed on both sides of the Pashtun-dominated Pak-Afghan border.” But the Taliban were “‘looking for a way out’ of the problem with bin Laden”. The U.S. was urged to “find a way to compromise with the Taliban”, and possible “ways that the U.S. and the Taliban might use to break the impasse” were suggested, including “the possibility of a trial in a third (Muslim) country”, “U.S. assurances that bin Laden would not face the death penalty”, and “a U.S. outline of what the Taliban would gain from extradition of bin Laden”.[2]
A D V E R T I S E M E N T

It is already known that the U.S. had demanded in secret discussions with the Taliban that bin Laden be handed over for more than three years prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The talks continued “until just days before” the attacks, according to a Washington Post report the month following the attacks. But a compromise solution such as the above that would offer the Taliban a face-saving way out of the impasse was never seriously considered. Instead, “State Department officials refused to soften their demand that bin Laden face trial in the U.S. justice system.”
Officials described the U.S. decision to reject Taliban offers as a missed opportunity. Former CIA station chief Milt Bearden told the Post, “We never heard what they were trying to say…. We had no common language. Ours was, ‘Give up bin Laden.’ They were saying, ‘Do something to help us give him up.’” Bearden added, “I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him. He was a pain in the neck,” but this “never clicked” with U.S. officials.
Michael Malinowski, a State Department official involved in the talks, acknowledged, “I would say, ‘Hey, give up bin Laden,’ and they would say, ‘No…. Show us the evidence’”, a request U.S. officials deemed unreasonable.[3]
According to the BBC, the Taliban later even warned the U.S. that bin Laden was going to launch an attack on American soil. Former Taliban foreign minister Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil said his warnings, issued because of concerns that the U.S. would react by waging war against Afghanistan, had been ignored. A U.S. official did not deny that such warnings were issued, but told BBC rather that it was dismissed because “We were hearing a lot of that kind of stuff”.[4]
Indeed, underscoring Muttawakil’s stated reasons for having delivered the threat warning to the U.S., a State Department document from June 2001 obtained by INTELWIRE.com[5] showed that the U.S. had warned the Taliban “that they will be held directly responsible for any loss of life that occurs from terrorist actions related to terrorists who have trained in Afghanistan or use Afghanistan as a base of planning operations.”[6] The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Salam Zaeef responded that “the Taliban do not see Americans as their enemies and that there are no threats to Americans coming from the Taliban. Nontheless, said Zaeef, ‘We will do our best to follow up and stop’ any threat.” With regard to bin Laden, “Zaeef emphasized that the Taliban’s relationship with UBL [Usama/Osama bin Laden] and others is based not on enmity against the United States, but on ‘culture.’”[7]
Know what’s important: Having a Healthy Food Supply like eFoodsDirect is Essential (AD)
Rejecting the Taliban offers to have bin Laden handed over, the U.S. instead pursued a policy of regime change well prior to the 9/11 attacks. Jane’s Information Group reported in March 2001 that “India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime”, which included support for Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance, including “information and logistic support” from Washington.[8] Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik told the BBC that he had been told by senior U.S. officials in July 2001 at a U.N.-sponsored summit in Berlin that military action would be taken against the Taliban by the middle of October. Preparations had already been coordinated with Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Russia. Naik also “said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.”[9]
A newly released document dated August 30, 2001 shows that Pakistan was continuing to urge the U.S. “to maintain open channels to the Taliban.” Pakistani officials denied that their support for the Taliban included military assistance. When asked “why Pakistan supports the Taliban”, an official replied, “We don’t support but inter-act with the Taliban”. Pressed further on why Pakistan continued “to give the Taliban international diplomatic support and to press the USG [United States Government] to engage with the Taliban?” the Pakistanis “reiterated that the Taliban are the effective rulers of at least 90 percent of Afghanistan, that they enjoy significant popular support because they ended the banditry and anarchy that once bedeviled the country, and that the instant success of the opium poppy production ban underscored … the reality and effectiveness of Taliban authority.” If it wasn’t for “external support” for the Northern Alliance, it “would collapse in a matter of days.”[10]
Another newly disclosed document shows that two days after the 9/11 attacks Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf was told “bluntly” that “There was no inclination in Washington to engage in a dialog with the Taliban.” The U.S. was already prepared for military action and “believed strongly that the Taliban are harboring the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks.” The U.S. was “fairly sure” that bin Laden “and his Al Qida network of terrorists” were guilty.[11]
The following day, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage issued an ultimatum to Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed that Pakistan’s cooperation was expected “should the evidence strongly implicate Usama bin-Laden and the Al Qaida network in Afghanistan and should Afghanistan and the Taliban continue to harbor him and this network”.[12]


     Should you wish to look for more, you should check for more.  The New York Times Wants people to pay for older articles, and I don't have enough money to do so.  Should you wish to check the Main Stream Media Resources for this information, my memory tells me you will basically find the same information as I chose here, but in greater detail.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


134 posted 03-30-2011 12:07 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

So it seems, if I am reading this correctly, that it wasn't actually an outright offer of Bin Laden to the U.S. that was declined, but actually the taliban seeking a quid pro quo in exchange for him, a deal which was never actually worked out or finalized by either side.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


135 posted 03-30-2011 05:07 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     The Talliban offered, the United States declined to even consider the offer.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


136 posted 03-30-2011 07:19 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

It is already known that the U.S. had demanded in secret discussions with the Taliban that bin Laden be handed over for more than three years prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Why is it then that Clinton refused to accept him when offered? There were some flimsy excuses given, like we had no prison secure enough to keep him (imagine that!). Another reason given was that Bin Laden had done nothing wrong yet so it was against policy to hold someone  who was not yet guilty of a crime. Well, a case could be made for that point but what you are doing is bringing up the acknowledgement that Clinton was speaking out of both sides of his mouth, demanding Bin Laden be turned over while refusing to take him at the same time. That has what to do with Bush?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


137 posted 03-30-2011 07:35 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yesterday, it was the turn of Clinton administration veterans to face questioning on why they had failed to take more aggressive action against al-Qaida in the wake of the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Africa and the 2000 attack on the American destroyer USS Cole.

That's a major point. What was the Clinton administration's reaction to these incidents? Nada. As a matter of fact, Bin Laden mentioned in a speech after 9/11 that they were so encouraged by America's lack of response to the attack on the Cole, that they went ahead with the 9/11 attack.

The former officials defended their record but also revealed splits in the Clinton administration on how to respond to the attacks. Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state, directed blame at the Clinton-era defence department under William Cohen for not agreeing to use special forces to hunt down al-Qaida in the Afghan mountains.

"I'm personally not satisfied we were able to get the right answers out of the Pentagon," she said. Mrs Albright said she had repeatedly pressed for alternative military measures other than the cruise missile strikes on suspected al-Qaida bases that were tried after the embassy bombings. She said the Pentagon told her that special forces units would either be too small to protect themselves or too large to be covert.


That is Clinton's CYA in action. I must say, Bob, I am surprised and pleased that you would refer so well  to articles showing the democrats bungling at that time.

The commission heard that after the African embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the Clinton administration presented an ultimatum to the Taliban warning it would bear the consequences if there were another al-Qaida attack.

The commission members, drawn from the ranks of retired officials and politicians from both parties, repeatedly asked why that threat was not delivered after the 2000 attack on the USS Cole.

Mrs Albright said that by the time the Clinton administration left office in January 2001 there was still no "definitive proof" of al-Qaida involvement in the suicide attack off the Yemeni coast. John Lehman, a navy secretary in the Reagan administration and one of the commissioners, alleged that the CIA was already convinced of al-Qaida's responsibility by December, but Mrs Albright said that finding was not passed on to the political leadership.


If your intention was to expose the Clinton White House for the Keystone Cops they acted like with regards to Bin Laden and the Taliban, you have succeeded admirably.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


138 posted 03-31-2011 02:52 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     While I'm not holding my breath for Clinton or Obama to repent the things they probably should repent for — and I'm reasonably sure we would disagree on what those things might be — I was actually addressing your request to give you references for my suggestion that The Presidency of Bush the younger had amounted to an abandonment of Afghanistan.  I offered multiple references and a lengthy excerpt, which not only addressed the information you requested but offered a multi-dimensional look at that material, including so facts from the right wing point of view, which certainly deserved representation.  I don't intend to try to pretend there is no right wing point of view, even when it is inconvenient.

     You apparently missed the part of the text where the authors spoke about how the Taliban offered to turn Bin Ladin over to a neutral third party, and how George Bush refused the discussion.  

     I regard my obligation to demonstrate proof of my allegation as discharged.

     Should you wish to change the subject to The activities of President Clinton, you might consider opening another thread on the subject.  Since you and I have already had that discussion, I will think about joining that discussion, but my major interest remains here, where you have asserted that — if I understand you correctly — President Bush Minimus has done nothing that might materially hurt the interests of the United States by withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and using these same folks to invade Iraq.  This would suggest that the enemies of the United States did nothing in the intervening time to consolidate their position in Afghanistan or put the lives of American troops or our allies in danger there, and it further supposes that each and every life lost in Iraq was lost in the interest of the successful recovery of those weapons of Mass Destruction that The President told us were our reason for doing the invasion in the first place.  It further suggests that each and every life, American and otherwise, was lost fighting Al Qaeda soldiers that The President told us were there in such large numbers.

     Frankly, I believe the boat has sailed on those terrible lies.  I do not believe that I could tell you what the current justification is for the original invasion.  I have considerable trouble with understanding the justification the current Democratic administration offers for our ongoing presence there.

     I have shown proof that we were given a chance to head off much of this conflict.

      Instead of trying to suggest that I didn't, it would be nice if you acknowledged that I actually did as you requested and came up with the goods.  Trying to shift the subject top what Clinton might have done or should have done is a topic for another thread, and one we've been around — beg pardon — the Bush with already.

     If you don't believe I came up with the goods, tell me why and what's wrong with the references and the facts, so that I can take a shot at repairing the problem if I think that the job is worth it.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


139 posted 03-31-2011 08:55 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Should you wish to change the subject to The activities of President Clinton, you might consider opening another thread on the subject.

Actually, Bob, I could live very nicely with never discussing Billy again, however, it was not to change the subject. The subject I saw was the opportunity missed of Bin Laden being offered to the United States. That road led directly to Clinton, long before Bush. You know how it is. I refer to the current atrocities in Afghanistan and you refer to Bush's past actions..same thing.

As far as Bush's refusal of the "offer"..it smells, in my opinion. The Taliban wanted proof of Bin Laden's guilt and all bombing stopped before they would "consider" turning him over to a "third Party". Doesn't that sound just a little like stalling for time to you? The week after 9/11 there was still no concrete proof, although the circumstantial proof was overwhelming - and proved to be true, didn't it? I'm assuming that the Bush administration saw that the same way - a stall for time and little  more...or do you think the Taliban actually wasn't sure Bin Laden engineered 9/11? Or do you feel that fine, upstanding organization that held weekly events at soccer stadiums around the country, where they rounded up citizens, lined them up and machine-gunned them, for the enjoyment of the watching audiences? That was documented, with video, by 60 Minutes, before 9/11 even happened...were sincere in their offer?

I do acknowledge that you have put in an attempt at research and I'll applaud you for that. Yes, there were two articles from the Guardian in the UK and another from "infowars" which led to a broken link on my computer, but it was something. Was the Guardian's account accurate or not....who can say? It does lead me to wonder, though, why such a momentus thing was not carried by US media, certainly not great friends of Bush....but it WAS something and I appreciate your effort.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


140 posted 03-31-2011 11:28 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     You have cited The Guardian in the past, as I recall, Mike.  I also cited The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, The Washinington Times and CBS, twice.  Most of them tell about the same story.  They tend to all agree that the offer was made to turn Bin Laden over to a neutral Third party government.  Many of the Sources state that the Proof was a face saving device for the Taliban, who mostly wanted to get rid of the guy.

     Stalling for time?  Possibly   That could have been checked out very quickly indeed.  A lot of blood and treasure might have been saved.

     The test, of course, would have been Bush calling their bluff, which was the issue.  He didn't.  It was one of the more serious errors the man made.  It seems pretty much characteristic of the man's Presidency.

     "Seems fair enough to me, Mr. Taliban, if we can work this out in say a week or less.  That seems a serious amount of time to me.  Otherwise, I'll have to assume you're simply not serious and are stalling for time for some reason."

     Of course, The President would have had to negotiate in good faith himself, but at that point in time he still had the reputation to be able to pull it off, I think.

     I believe that the war was what he wanted, however, for whatever reason.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


141 posted 03-31-2011 05:41 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I also cited The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, The Washinington Times and CBS, twice.  Most of them tell about the same story.  They tend to all agree that the offer was made to turn Bin Laden over to a neutral Third party government.

Sorry, Bob.I haven't seen those links. I only saw  the threee I mentioned.

They only wanted to get rid of the guy? Then why didn;t they? Asking for definite proof of guilt right after 9/11 isn't something that could be done in a week....or even months...and whenever proof was given, the taliban could have said "that's not enough" and kept it going, all the while having all action halted. Bush was correct for not agreeing to such a trap.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


142 posted 04-01-2011 01:58 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     They wuz turned down flat as a pancake By President Bush.  Why did he turn them down?  Many of us wondered that.  I think that bin Laden had pretty much even taken credit for the thing at that time.  It's one of the great puzzles I've run across, and the only thing that makes sense to me is that the President needed to go to war for some reason and was following what he saw was the shortest line he could find to that destination.  The thought feels very uncomfortable to entertain, though.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


143 posted 04-01-2011 07:51 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

If Bin Laden had taken credit for it, then why was the Taliban demanding proof before turning him over? I'm surprised that "the many of you" didn't see the scam.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


144 posted 04-01-2011 02:28 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Mike, my memory is imperfect on that point, as I said, rught?  I was trying to extend some courtesy your way here, not trying to explain what seems to me a policy failure, or one of them, that got us into an unnecessary war.

Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


145 posted 04-02-2011 06:19 AM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
If Bin Laden had taken credit for it, then why was the Taliban demanding proof before turning him over?


The US under Clinton were trying to get the Afghans to hand Bin Laden over to face charges relating to the USS Cole bombing, diplomats met to discuss the possibility on more than 20 occasions and each time the Afghan request for evidence linking Bin Laden to the attack was rejected.

I don't think the Afghan request for evidence was unreasonable, do you? In fact I'd expect any country, including the US. to demand evidence before extraditing an individual accused of committing a crime by another country.

I'd also expect any country demanding extradition to present such evidence on request, the US didn't do that.
  
There's probably a very good reason why the US didn't present the evidence Mike, it's because they didn't actually have any. That fact is glaringly obvious to anyone who's read the 9/11 commission report which documents the USS Cole incident and subsequent actions in some detail.

So you have a request for extradition without evidence and a country, quite rightly, refusing that request. Then 9/11 happened and everything changed. At that point the US again demanded the extradition of Bin Laden, again without evidence, but this time with the threat of military action. The Afghans, holding true to the notion that handing over Bin Laden without any presentation of evidence wasn't an option, offered to offload the hot potato to a neutral body to stand trial. The US then huffed, then they puffed, then they blew the house down.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


146 posted 04-02-2011 07:55 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I don't think the Afghan request for evidence was unreasonable, do you? In fact I'd expect any country, including the US. to demand evidence before extraditing an individual accused of committing a crime by another country.
I'd also expect any country demanding extradition to present such evidence on request, the US didn't do that.
The Afghans, holding true to the notion that handing over Bin Laden without any presentation of evidence wasn't an option,


Yes, I understand that, by posting this reply, I will leave myself open to all kinds of replies, but that's fine.

You speak of Afghanistan as the same as any other country. You speak of  the "Afghans", when in reality you are speaking of the Taliban. You present it in such a way that these Taliban are simply exercising the same thought processes as any decent country. I suggest you research the Taliban. You will find a group far removed from the  government of those "any countries" you refer to. I reiterate the tapes that were smuggled out of Afghanistan and played on 60 Minutes showing life in Afghanistan under Taliban rule. Perhaps those tapes are on the web, I haven't yet checked.

You have, according to Bob, a country eager to unload Bin Laden, a Bin Laden acknowledging master-minding 9/11, a murderous group of individuals ruling the country with death squads holding on to principles of needing to see concrete evidence before getting rid of someone they wanted to get rid of...My comment would be......yeah, right. All I see is an attempt to stop the bombing by presenting delay. I feel fairly confident that any evidence presented by the US would have somehow been deemed unacceptable with demands for more, perpetuating the delay.

9/11 was actually a pretty big deal over here, sir. So you have a fellow you know to be responsible (even with lack of a videotape recording him giving direct instructions to carry it out), you have a murderous regime who is hiding him and saying "prove it", and your course of action would be.....do nothing, until you can find concrete proof that the Taliban may or may not accept? Since Bin Laden's guilt has been proven since, it seems  that the circumstantial evidence the US had, turned out to be pretty valid, wasn't it? They had him, he masterminded killing over 3000 American and destroying our major landmarks, they would not turn him over, and we bombed them. Call us impetuous Americans.

Comparing the Taliban as any "normal"  government is like comparing a rabid dog with a household pet, claiming that it would not bite you because that's not what a normal pet would do and yet you would present the case that their actions were based on principles?

Plenty of swampland still for sale.....
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


147 posted 04-02-2011 11:12 AM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
Plenty of swampland still for sale.....


Perhaps you shouldn't have bought so much Mike.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


148 posted 04-02-2011 03:23 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

LOL! Nice return
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


149 posted 04-02-2011 08:17 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     You don't have to like the Taliban to treat the then ruling party of a sovereign nation with diplomatic courtesy, do you?  You don't have to stop obeying the rules of grammar, either.  Bother are there for similar reasons.  They put the meaning of actions and statements into a context that makes their meaning much more understandable than they would be otherwise.  When you stop obeying the rules of grammar or diplomacy, the meaning of statement and actions becomes more difficult to understand and interpret.

     In other words, Mike, it's not about whether we think the Taliban are thugs or not or deserve the niceties or not; it's whether or not we want to understand what's being said to us, and whether or not we want the other folks to understand what we're saying.  That's why the whole business of diplomacy got started in a formal way during the Napoleonic wars, so that everybody was pretty much talking the same language in the same way, and so that misunderstandings due to ruffled feathers and trust issues would be cut to a minimum because all of them would be dealt with with elaborate courtesy, sometimes to the point of nausea and fury.  That's why there was so much talk about the shape of the table in the Paris peace talks in the Vietnam War.    

     When you don't like somebody or have contempt for them, all this stuff gets drawn out further.  It doesn't get condensed.  You have more to fight about, not less.

     What we're talking about here is President Bush's unwillingness to substitute conversation and frustration for blood and treasure, and his inability to think that there might be something to be gained by substitution of thought and conversation for action.  It's possible there might be reasons beyond inability.  Considering the reasonably short periods of the delay he might have negotiated for, it would be fascinating to see what those might have been.

     Considering the stakes involved, I cannot imagine what would possibly have been the advantage of action over negotiation.  Any course ,of action but negotiation would have resulted in an equal or larger loss for the United States in terms of status, treasure or lives, to put these things in reverse order.

     It may, however, be possible, that an action agenda would have been to the advantage to other parties than the People of these United States.  Multinational oil Companies, for example, might have benefited; the far right wing might in some fashion have benefitted.  This would have to be demonstrated, of course.  The actual benefit of a war to the people of the United States seems pretty far down the list of possibilities as far as I can tell.

     Negotiation would have been far preferable.

     People who live in Florida complaining about folks who don't buying swamp-land?  That's a switch for you.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Feelings >> Obama   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors