| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
Well that's all right then |
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Now even Mike and Denise will have to acknowledge Obama the hero! Bin Laden dead thanks to your President's extraordinary perception and decisiveness - and all's right with the world again.  |
||
| © Copyright 2011 moonbeam - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
moonbeam, spoken like a man desperate to find something good to say about the man and relieved to finally have found something I DO applaud Obama for his actions. Four years ago, the United States learned the man's identity, which officials did not disclose, and then about two years later, they identified areas of Pakistan where he operated. Last August, the man's residence was found, officials said. "Intelligence analysis concluded that this compound was custom built in 2005 to hide someone of significance," with walls as high as 18 feet and topped by barbed wire, according to one official. Despite the compound's estimated $1 million cost and two security gates, it had no phone or Internet running into the house. Obviously, the wheels leading up to discovering the location of Bin Laden were put in place before Obama took office but he was the one who gave the order and deserves credit for doing so. It was risky, doing it without advising the Pakistani gov't beforehand, and I give another salute for that. It couldn't have come at a better time for Obama. He needed something to slow down his nose-diving poll numbers. This will do that very nicely until people get back in their cars and drive to their local gas stations. So, yes, Obama gets kudos for this. He done good. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Obama the hero!" I didn't know he was a Seal. The lead was followed for four years. When the military came with the plans was Obama going to say no? "It was risky, doing it without advising the Pakistani gov't beforehand" The site was a short distance from their West Point . . . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It's interesting the mixed feelings I get over this. Am I glad we got Bin Laden? Yes.Am I glad he is dead? Yes....but somehow I find this euphoria, these "WE KILLED HIM!" headlines, these wild celebrations to be distasteful. I'm just not comfortable with the celebration of the loss of life or of killing someone, even a Bin Laden. |
||
|
Margherita Member Seraphic
since 2003-02-08
Posts 22236Eternity |
quote: My thoughts exactly. Unless we - as humans - will not be able to stop the "circle of hatred" there will never be justice or peace. It's time that we evolve into higher beings, where love rules and where there is the awareness of being all ONE. The only thing we all should do with the greatest passion is to make this world a better place, by eliminating poverty and hunger and providing a dignified life for all. Other causes of revolution, terrorism and war, like material greed and religious fundamentalism would also have less reason to persist, if we could achieve this goal for humanity. Evil pursuing people should be given the chance to change their attitude, by being shown constructive means to improve human conditions. In killing them there is no gain really. Love and peace. Margherita |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I was typing the same thing earlier but didn't post it, Michael. I didn't celebrate when Sadaam was hung, and I'm not celebrating now with the death of bin Laden and some of his family, nor for the deaths of Gadhafi's family members. I don't see death as something to celebrate, even the death of bin Laden. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. You really have to murder in the millions these days for people to feel happy about you being dead. . |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Mike.Also nice to hear three US citizens with reservations about some of the over the top celebrations of a death. It somewhat restores my faith in perspective. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "in perspective" as in no innocent I cared about had to choose between jumping or burning to death. . . . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Wow! Mike and Denise have a liberal bias! |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
His death doesn't undo those deaths, or the unspeakable, unfathomable, agonizing, horrific situation they faced, John. And to be sure they suffered much more than he did in his death. I'm sure everybody has differing convictions on it. I'd have been satisfied with his being locked up in a maxium security prison for the rest of his life, which I'm sure he would have been if he hadn't resisted. The Navy Seals did what they had to do and they deserve our gratitude. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I understood those who felt the need to go to Ground Zero, or the White House. As for the facts? I'd like to know if the breaking news did actually interrupt the ever-captivating end of Donald Trump's show "The Apprentice"? Now that I would find amusing. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. When Baron von Richthofen was shot out of the sky in April 1918, there were a number of Allied comments about him being a knight of the sky and a worthy opponent, (he in fact had little silver cups made to celebrate each of his victories). A combat pilot asked his opinion simply responded: “I hope he burned all the way down.” By the way, it was a “kill” operation, which saved a lot of legal fees. . |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: That's a novel way to save money but I guess if you're going to ignore the right to a free trial it sort of makes sense. The government could set up facilities to exterminate the prison population en masse - that would save an absolute fortune. I'm amazed nobody has thought of it before. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
That's funny Karen! It wouldn't surprise me! Oh, John, please don't tell me the Administration is lying AGAIN?  A spokesperson just said not 15 minutes ago that they were instructed to take him alive if at all possible, but since he resisted it wasn't possible. What to believe, what to believe? Experience tells me to believe you, John.Don't get me wrong. I'm not upset over his death. I just can't get in a celebratory frame of mind over any death. And kudos to President Bush for implementing the policies, and to President Obama for having the common sense to continue those policies, that led to Osama's downfall. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Agreed, Denise. His death is not to be mourned at all and may he catch the clap from every virgin waiting for him in his promised land. It still makes our public celebrations distasteful to me in some ways. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It was a strange day. I'd never felt so disconnected from what I had seen and sensed around me. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Wouldn't it be a great sign of graciousness if Obama were to invite Bush to NY with him this Thursday to share in the spotlight? If he did I might even gain a measure of respect for the man. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Has there ever been a more contemptible leader from behind, or a commander who authorized more blanket death sentences on bystanders?” http://www.slate.com/id/2292687/ PS If you’re interested there are some great moments of Hitchens taking on and down Maher and his audience on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXlEdtRZJCQ . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Denise, it would indeed be a sign of graciousness but don't hold your breath. Obama is going to wring this one out for all he can get and he ain't sharing the spotlight with anyone!  A little ironic that information from a prisoner at Gitmo, which Obama opposes, extracted by waterboarding, which Obama opposes, led the the action that Obama is taking bows for....  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I think M. Luther King summed it up very well....thanks, Martie "I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." --Martin Luther King, Jr. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Why in the world would Bush be put in the spotlight? Bin Laden wasn't found in Iraq, was he? LOL. quote: That's speculation from Rumsfeld and, frankly, a lot of crap. These guys have been behind bars for most of a decade, remember? Their information isn't exactly current. And somehow I have trouble crediting that the nick name of a courier provided literally years in the past was nearly as key as Rumsfeld and others might like to believe. And if it was key? Then it could (and no doubt was) obtained more reliably and without turning us into them. If the death of a monster shouldn't be celebrated, and I agree it shouldn't, neither should it be used to justify torture. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "If the death of a monster shouldn't be celebrated, and I agree it shouldn't, " I don't understand that. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Why in the world would Bush be put in the spotlight? Bin Laden wasn't found in Iraq, was he? LOL. I';ll defer to John's comment... I didn't know Obama was a Seal That's speculation from Rumsfeld and, frankly, a lot of crap. A strange statement, coming from you, Ron. You have no way of knowing if it's crap or not. You may WISH it is but I'd like to see the proof that it isn't. These guys have been behind bars for most of a decade, remember? Their information isn't exactly current. Yes, I remember, Ron, and that's why I say where is the acknowledgement to Bush? Obama doesn't have to put Bush in the spotlight but acknowledging that the results stemmed from actions that Bush put into effect would seem to be appropriate. Then it could (and no doubt was) obtained Really? No doubt? At the time democrats were screaming bloody murder that waterboarding was going on, you claim there is no doubt waterboarding was NOT used? You want to think that waterboarding turns us into them? Be my guest. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Which part confuses you, John? That bin Laden was a monster or that I don't take joy in his death? quote: What does either Obama or the Seal team have to do with crediting Bush, Mike? The Seals took on a dangerous job and should be applauded for both their loyalty to country and their courage. They did their jobs and did it proudly. But, uh, they didn't find the target, Mike, and that's kind of what we were talking about. Need I even say it? I didn't know Bush was a Seal. quote: I believe the Administration already did exactly that, Mike, when they publicly announced that President Bush was one of the first people called. I think that was acknowledging Bush's part and I definitely agree it was appropriate. But it certainly didn't have anything to do with crediting Bush for torturing men some ten years ago and then going after Iraq instead. quote: My pronouns could no doubt have been more clear, Mike. "It' doesn't refer to waterboarding, but rather to the nick name of someone obtained from waterboarding. My contention is that the name could have been obtained without torture -- and no doubt was. It could never have been trusted without that confirmation, Mike. quote: LOL. Mike, everything coming from Rumsfeld has always been a load of crap. No, of course, I don't have any proof. Simply the logical conclusion that men who probably don't know who won the last World Series or the (outrageous) price of gas probably didn't know bin Laden's location in 2011, either. If we look only at what Presidents Bush and Obama have publicly said the conclusions are inescapable. Obama publicly claimed one of the first things he did when taking office was to tell the appropriate people that capturing Osama bin Laden was their number one priority. Bush, on the other hand, publicly claimed he didn't care where bin Laden was and spent the greater part of eight years dismissing the leader of Al Qaeda as unimportant. Honestly? I don't believe either man. One was trying to take credit, the other trying to escape blame, and both were simply playing politics as usual. The bottom line, however, is that Bush didn't find bin Laden within the scope of two four-year terms, whether his failure was from not caring, as he repeatedly claimed, or from really bad luck. Obama did find bin Laden, either because he pushed harder as he claimed or from really good luck. I have very little doubt that luck played a part for both men (which probably shouldn't detract from Obama's willingness to take action when the opportunity presented itself). I just don't see any reason someone would expect Bush to get credit for Obama's luck? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "that I don't take joy in his death?" My Polish parents took joy in the death of Hitler. Of course he murdered millions . . . . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And probably took the same joy in those deaths others would later take in his. I've done many things in my life I wished I didn't have to do. I did them nonetheless, and most days I can look in the mirror with very few regrets. The day I take pleasure in hurting someone is the day all that will change for me. That's simply not a path I want to follow, John. Killing monsters is a necessary evil. That it is necessary makes it no less evil. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I just don't see any reason someone would expect Bush to get credit for Obama's luck? True enough. When Obama stands up and says, "I got Osama because I got lucky", we will be in complete agreement. The day I take pleasure in hurting someone is the day all that will change for me. Absolutely I agree. That's why I (and the others, I'm sure) say we have no desire to celebrate the event. I don't applaud when I kill a bug, either, although some of my customers do . It's a job that must be done.We live in a world where a quarterback sack causes a player to jump up, throw his fists in the air, scream defiantly at the fallen player and walk around, beating his chest with his hands to the wild frenzy of the fans.......and all for doing exactly what he gets paid to do. Can't you imagine Bronco Nagurski or some of the old timers looking at those antics and just shaking their heads?? It's all show these days...and that's a little sad to me. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "I take pleasure in hurting someone is the day all that will change for me" Not someone Ron; a monster. It is one thing to go armed; it's another to live years helplessly in the eye of a beast intent on slaughter. As it is we will rely on others who are willing to be scarred in our favor. . . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Not quite complete agreement, Mike. Not until Bush stands up and makes a few admissions of his own. I don't think either of us are going to hold our breaths? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You got dat right |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thanks, L.R. That's nice to hear. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “President George W. Bush, not his successor, constructed the interrogation and warrantless surveillance programs that produced this week's actionable intelligence. For this, congressional Democrats and media pundits pilloried him for allegedly exceeding his presidential powers and violating the Bill of Rights. As a candidate in 2008, then-Sen. Obama held Mr. Bush and Sen. John McCain "responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States." These decisions, he said, allowed bin Laden and his circle to establish "a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world." Upon taking office, Mr. Obama tried to fulfill the dreams of the antiwar left. In January 2009, he signed executive orders to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and limit the CIA to U.S. military interrogation methods. He made it clear that al Qaeda leaders would be tried in civilian courts. And in August 2009, his attorney general, Eric Holder, launched a criminal investigation into CIA officers who had interrogated al Qaeda leaders. Imagine what would have happened if the Obama administration had been running things immediately following 9/11. After their "arrest," we would have read KSM and al-Libi their Miranda rights, provided them legal counsel, sent them to the U.S. for detention, and granted them all the rights provided a U.S. citizen in criminal proceedings. If this had happened, the CIA could not have built the intelligence mosaic that pinpointed bin Laden's location. Without the intelligence produced by Bush policies, the SEAL helicopters would be idling their engines at their Afghanistan base even now. In the war on terror, it is easy to pull the trigger—it is hard to figure out where to aim . . . “Mr. Obama's policies now differ from their Bush counterparts mainly on the issue of interrogation. As Sunday's operation put so vividly on display, Mr. Obama would rather kill al Qaeda leaders—whether by drones or special ops teams—than wade through the difficult questions raised by their detention. This may have dissuaded Mr. Obama from sending a more robust force to attempt a capture. . . White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said Monday that the SEAL team had orders to take bin Laden alive, "if he didn't present any threat," though he correctly dismissed this possibility as "remote." This is hard to take seriously. No one could have expected bin Laden to surrender without a fight. And capturing him alive would have required the administration to hold and interrogate bin Laden at Guantanamo Bay, something that has given this president allergic reactions bordering on a seizure. . . http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870383480457630103259552737 2.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop The increase in drone attacks already showed that somebody doesn't have a problem killing without trial. . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRY_BOYeySc quote: |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Osama Bin Ladin is dead. So are almost 3,000 folks in the twin towers in New York City, I don’t know how many people in Washington, and the folks on the briefly surviving flight that went down under hideous circumstances in Pennsylvania. I have no idea how to tabulate the casualties among responders and the citizens of New York City and the nearly areas from direct and secondary effects of the blast and demolition and cleanup. In a first draft of this commentary, I wrote about the damage done — we ourselves have done — to our civil rights and our constitution as a result. I was forced to cut that segment. If we are lucky, we can perhaps repair some portion of that damage. I have hopes. IIn the meantime, I think that most of the damage that Mr. Bin Ladin did to us was out of religious conviction that I don’t agree with, but which should be familiar to us from a close examination of our own fanatics. There are Jewish fanatics who are perfectly willing to assassinate muslims and to provoke extremely difficult situations, just as there are Christian fanatics who are happy to provoke martyrdom in Communist countries and occasionally in Muslim countries as well. We tend to be somewhat more forgiving of these folks — I know I am.. Humans tend to divide their belief systems up somewhat rigidly. I don’t count myself out of this. Mr. Bin Ladin earned my dislike many times over. But then, I’m not seriously pleased with casualties cased by the United States and our friends in Iraq, either. You can pick our own sources for statistics, but when you look at what we inflicted in the Iraqis in the Gulf War Redux, they didn’t start it, and we inflicted a humongous number of casualties on them while wrecking and looting their country for no discernible reason. Some casualty reports go as high as half a million. Mr. Bin Ladin actually got us to make his case for him in a good part of the world.. We may have smart bombs, but we’re even better at putting the laser sights on our own feet. We poison our own wells not only abroad,. but here at home as well, though that’s another story. One thing that Mr. Bin Ladin excelled at was in knowing how to get us started. He was very good at that. The question has come up about who should have credit for Mr. Bin Ladin’s death. It appears that there are two schools of thought represented. One says that President Bush should have the credit. The other says that President Obama should have the credit. Myself, I think that credit is not something that should be sought in something like this. I nice trial and a long confinement in a prison with a good old American rainbow coalition of felons would have seemed the best thing for me. Muslims, Jews, Christians, atheists all living together in an uproar of loathing would have been an interesting solution to the Osama Bin Laden issue. That’s what I said to everybody when they all came to me and asked, of course; but when does my government ever listen to me? In case the attempt at wit didn’t come across there, that was an attempt at a joke. Sometimes they actually make people laugh. I’d say that both of them should get something. For President Bush, Osama was the gift that never stopped giving. Every time he wanted to centralize power a bit more, cut back a bit more on civil rights, repeal another constitutional protection, there was Osama, a convenient reason for lawmakers to point to. The problem was that Osama wasn’t really all that terrible an enemy. He wasn’t a country. So when it looked as though we might be coming close to capturing him, it was time to turn our attentions elsewhere, say to Iraq, where we might be certain never to run the danger of finding Osama at all, and where we could make up all sorts of fantasies to draw things out, and where we could downplay the importance of Osama, who might not prove all that hard to locate and eliminate should we put our minds to it. No wonder President Bush hardly thought about him any more, and apparently hoped nobody else did either. If we found him, the frenzy for war might abate. And no wonder President Obama was so interested in finding the man, and putting pressure on to do so. Eliminate the man and a lot of the hysteria for war might subside. There might be some money and energy left for a democratic agenda. So no wonder President Bush didn't want to appear on a platform with President Obama to join hands over a job well done. I suspect there were two different jobs here, and the end of one job would be somewhat bitter, and the beginning of the other might be somewhat hopeful. Of course, I'm a paranoid liberal. There are probably other reasons why one President thought Osama was unimportant and disbanded the CIA section that was searching for him, and why another thought he was vital and put resources into the project. No doubt simpler and covering all the bases. And no wonder it would be better to have Osama turn up dead. President Obama has never been particularly enamored of political trials. Apparently he feels they’re divisive or some such, and he wants some Republican support. Lotssa luck on that one, by the way. My guess is that Osama in the end had it his way. He went out like a whopper. Shot by Americans, he got to be a Martyr, and the beat goes on. I don’t think anybody comes out of the affair covered with sparkly angel glitter stuff, myself, but that’s only my opinion. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. So under Bush you bring ‘em back for interrogation, under Obama you bring ‘em back in a bag; under Bush you put water up their nose under Obama you put a bullet in their head It was fun to listen to the Left circle wagons around that Peace Prize as to what is now being generally conceded as a hit. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: In some ways, yes, if you want to generalize enough to make blue sound like green and yellow sound like Pontiacs. If you’d care to pin down exactly what you’re talking about, I could probably give you a better response, though. For example, “I” didn’t do any of this stuff. Unless “you” are considerably more active in military affairs and in covert operations, forgive me for assuming “you” didn’t either. Not bring ‘em back for interrogation, not put water up their noses, and not bring any of them back in bags. Forgive me for saying so, but the Right wing has been very much in favor of all these things the whole time, the bringing back for interrogation, the water-boarding and the bringing folks back in bags. Near as I can tell, the Right Wing is still in favor of all these things, though more in favor if a Right Wing Government is doing them. I thought they were wrong when they were done by The Right Wing and wrong now, when they are done under the leadership of President Obama. They ate away at civil rights and the rule of law under the Bush administration, and, in fact, under any and every administration that has countenanced such actions, including any Democratic administrations that have done so. If anybody expects me to defend such actions, they are mistaken. They were disgusting during the Republican administrations under Reagan and Bush Senior and Bush Minimus, and I don’t like them now. I find murder and torture disgusting more or less across the board, and I believe that the distain that we once held the Nazis who spoke of “just following orders” was justified after World War II and is equally justified now. I believe that Those who give the orders should be brought to trial for war crimes. That includes those people in our government who have done so, Republican and Democrat alike. “My country Right or Wrong” sounds no better to me in English than it does in Russian or German or Chinese or Arabic. quote: The first part of the sentence does not connect to the second part of the sentence. “As to what” somehow suggests that the events of recent weeks happened at the same time the Peace Prize was awarded instead of two years later. The Right Wing sometimes has trouble with sequence and time lines, and this appears to be one of those times. That being said, The Bin Ladin affair, or this latest iteration of the Bin Ladin affair, sure seems like a hit to me. I don’t like the notion of a hit, but politically, it is not against U.S. law because Bin Ladin is not the head of a foreign government. I am against it on personal moral grounds. An arrest would have been better, but highly unlikely, since Bin Ladin would have preferred death, and would have tried to find a way to die during an attempt to arrest him anyway. Martyrdom is very appealing to some folks. Perhaps I would find the objections to the death of bin Ladin on the part of some of the spokespersons for the right a bit more convincing if they had made such objections before the event rather than after. I would say the same about myself here, to be fair. I’d feel better about myself if I’d have said I wanted the man captured alive before his death. The statement that I’d rather he’d have been captured alive, coming as it does, after his death, sounds a bit weak even to my own ears. I have to live with the same flaw in myself that I’ve noted in my friends on the right. The reason that President Obama seems to have gotten that Peace Prize was that, near as I can tell, he wasn’t President Bush, and that the world wanted to let him know how much hope they were placing in his Presidency. I have lots of reasons to be upset in President Obama, and I’ve aired a lot of them in these pages at one point or another. I don’t anticipate that I’ll be changing that. I do not regret for one moment that he is not President Bush. Nor do I regret that he has in some ways managed to modify some of those programs. Nor do I expect that the world would either. I think President Obama has pretty much earned that Peace Prize, though I don’t like a lot of his foreign policy, and I’d sure like a lot of his policies to have been considerably more peaceful than they’ve proven to be. Nor do I see any sparkly glitter stuff suddenly appearing to be spread over anybody. Just a bunch of policies that seem sort of mildly right of center in what was once a saner era. Rockefeller Republicans, really, that now seem almost like communists to the folks that have taken over the wreckage that remains of what was once a fairly reasonable and inclusive and, dare I say it, noble political party. Not one I agreed with, but one that was decent as granite, and as solid. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I think President Obama has pretty much earned that Peace Prize, though I don’t like a lot of his foreign policy You have outdone yourself once again, Bob.  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Obama killed Osama and we got 72 versions! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Surely you meant to make a comment about the subject I was trying to address but simply forgot to make it clear enough for me to give you a response.. I would like to respond to a comment about the subject. I have heard this particular comment addressed to me instead of comments addressed to subjects I've tried to address often enough to feel that it was time to point this out. Was it my dissatisfaction with President Obama that was bothersome, or the fact that I was upset with President Obama for the same reason that I was upset with various Republican Presidents that you found bothersome? My condemnation of torture by everybody? My pointing out that the right wing seems to have no problem with the behavior of President Obama when it's the behavior of a Republican President? And that they even tend to encourage it in those cases, while I dislike and condemn it in both? I didn't like it when Kennedy did it with the Brother Diem or with Castro, either. It produced martyrs and tends to backfire, simply on a pragmatic level; it has other effects on a moral level that I think are worse, but which people can certainly offer a pragmatic argument against that's difficult to refute on purely pragmatic terms. My comment that I dislike homicide as an element of national policy when President Obama does it, even though, in the case of Osama Bin Ladin, it's legal according to U.S. law? My comments about the Peace Prize? Goodness, you've said the same thing, although you've drawn different conclusions. Be explicit, and we'll talk about it. Expressing your thoughts as some sort of a personal swipe at me? Too much like horseshoes, not enough like discussion to actually address to topic. That's what I think, anyway. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sorry, Bob, didn't mean to be so cryptic and definietly not personally insulting. It's just that I was leaving for work this morning and happened to see your comment in question before I left. There are times that you serve up a plate of linguistic linguini that leaves me totally confused. This may be my deficiency, not yours, but this example struck me as one of the less palatable. You state that Obama was given the Peace prize in the hopes of what he would do. Assuredly you meant what he would do on the world scene with regards to peace. I doubt the Nobel committee would be concerned about him making peace between the Yankees and the Red Sox. You state that you feel he has earned the award. You also state that you don't like a lot of his foreign policy. One has to wonder, then, what causes you to claim he has earned his Peace prize. Lessening the situation in Iraq? He hasn't. Lessening the situation in Afghanistan? He hasn't. Closing Gitmo? He hasn't. Managing not to get us involved in another war, using our troops, equipment and money, in which we have no stake ? He hasn't. What then, in the name of the Grand Poobah, has he done to cause you to make such a statement????? To the contrary, I can imagine the peace prize committee looking at each other and saying, "Oops!"  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Ah! Put us back on talking terms with most of the rest of the world would be my best guess. I don't like a lot of the things he's done or the way he's gone about them, mind you, including Gitmo. But then, you weren't in favor of him doing anything at all with Gitmo, and his actions should be earning your support, shouldn't they, unless you've changed your position on Gitmo. Same with Iraq. And you're in favor of expanded torture as a means of gaining information, if I recall correctly, for both foreign and domestic sources. I'm uncertain about what your actual complaints may be about, while I am all too clear about the nature of mine. I'm in favor of war crimes investigations against President Bush, and against President Obama where he has continued policies that have resulted in torture as defined by international standards that we have supported in the past, and which we have used to bring war criminals to trial with in the past. Both of them. What about your position on this? "'Well that's all right then'" really isn't all right at all, not for anybody. Yes, that includes President Obama. But it also includes the various administrations that have come beforehand. No, I don't approve of Osama Bin Ladin, and I never did. That doesn't mean that I approve of what we did in other places using Osama Bin Ladin as an excuse, either. Does Hitler excuse Stalin or vice versa? Not to my mind. I don't think it does to yours either, frankly, though heaven knows it's a more complicated chain of thinking than the simplified version I've presented, and I don't want to pretend that my presentation is the only or even the best way to frame things. Thoughts? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Put us back on talking terms with most of the rest of the world would be my best guess. That's the only sentence in your entire reply that had anything to do with your justification of his peace prize, Bob. You claim he has earned it but have to give a "best guess" as to why? Sorry, but I consider that to be quite weak, at best. I would think the other nominees might agree with me. He was handed the peace prize in the hopes of alleviating our situation in the Middle East. Instead of doing that, he has involved us in yet another conflict. I would not call that earning his prize. [This message has been edited by Balladeer (05-08-2011 08:46 AM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well if it makes you feel any better Mike and John, Michael Moore agrees with you! He thinks the President should give back the Nobel Peace prize. I think the 'points' that you're missing though -- is that President Obama is behaving exactly the way Candidate Obama said he was going to; From Veterans administration funding, to getting us out of Iraq, to re-focusing our efforts in Afghanistan and sending "at least two" additional brigades, to going into Pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden -- it's all laid out quite nicely during his campaign: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/?page=2http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/?page=2 So, I guess my question is -- why would you, Micheal Moore, or the Nobel Prize Committee have expected anything different? The only thing he hasn't been able to accomplish is the closing of Gitmo -- and that isn't for a lack of trying -- it's just harder to put that genie back into the bottle. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Mike, you are certainly correct. As is L.R. Though my understanding is that President Obama was presented the Peace Prize anyway. While Michael Moore may well have a point, I think that the Nobel committee is still made up of the sorts of folks who gave the prize to Henry Kissinger, and who are a bit more on the realistic than the totally idealistic side of things. I suspect they gave the prize because President Obama wasn't trying to remove the United States from the World Community, as President Bush was attempting to do — at least in my opinion, and in the opinion of much of the rest of the world and in the apparent opinion of many of our major Western allies. France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the usual suspects. If they weren't clear at first, they became clear as time went on. I do understand that you disagree, and I don't see that I will be able to change your mind. The Nobel Prize Committee, however, are the folks in charge of making up the Nobel prize committee's minds. There are choices that they've made that I haven't liked before, and there are choices they will make that I suspect I won't like again, not only for the Peace Prize, but for the various prizes in literature as well. I happen to agree with this one and disagree with some of the literature choices. I don't think that they're going to get it right any more frequently in one prize category than in another, though I happen to agree with their choice here. If you happen to believe that there is some way to make a matter of taste and opinion somewhat more objective than it is, I suggest that there may be some basic confusion involved here about what the nature of the Prize actually is. The Nobel Prize committee has every right to their thoughts and feelings about who deserves their prize. That is all the prize is, a codification of their best understanding of their thoughts and feelings on the matter. They can't be wrong; that's simply their best choice for their prize. Nobody else can make it for them. They could chose anybody, and they frequently have. That person would then be the right choice, even Henry Kissinger. The name of the Prize isn't The Bob Kaven Prize or the Mike Mack Prize, it's the Nobel Prize. Whomever they chose is automatically right. Nobody else has to agree or even like it. Same as their prize for literature or Chemistry or Physics. If you want to give the Mike Mack Peace Prize and offer a million bucks to back it up, please do so. Then people can tell you that you don't think or feel that the guy you chose is the person you really want to have win the prize, and that you were wrong. You really meant to give the Prize to Bob Kaven. We all knew that anyway. Really, though, you can keep the prize and just send the Million bucks along. That'd be just fine with me. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, Bob, they can give it to anyone they want, no doubt about that. My amazement is not with them. Everyone has the right to either agree or disagree with the committee's choice. Your agreement with them after seeing him get us into yet another war is what amazes me. I have little doubt that, if they had known that was going to happen before they gave it to him, they would have made another choice yet you, AFTER having it happen, still believe he is deserving. As I said, I doubt that even they do, now. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
But what does he have to do in order to be deserving, Mike? He certainly doesn't have to please me, though in many ways he does, and in some important ways he doesn't. All he has to do is please the Nobel Committee. I think, if I understand their logic, he was still pretty much a good pick for that prize at that time. And he certainly did show a considerable turn about in many ways from President Bush. I wanted more and still do. But if I understand your positions — and I confess, I really may not — you would like more centralized Presidential Power as was demonstrated by President Bush, less cooperation with other countries in the ways that President Bush demonstrated less cooperation with other countries, less cooperation with international law, more pushing back against conventions against torture, less attention to civil rights and due process as demonstrated by the activities of the Bush administration, and more freedom for the government to interfere in the legal processes that prior to the Bush administration had been excluded from government involvement. By this I mean specifically Posse Comitatus, which was set aside during the Bush administration. I find it an enduring shame that the Obama administration has not attempted to change that situation, by the way, and would not dream of letting the blame rest with the Bush folks in its entirety. There's certainly enough shame to spread around to all parties involved in the government. By and large, however, the Nobel folks seemed to have seen that the election of President Obama was an attempt at something more like a peaceful track for the country. No, it wasn't peaceful enough to satisfy me. No, it shouldn't have been peaceful enough to satisfy the country overall. But it was the best option we had as far a peacefulness went. And as far as I understand things — and as I said before, I may well have your position wrong on this — the position is far more peaceful than one that I understand you to be comfortable with overall, although you do seem to be against President Obama holding these positions. I also am against President Obama holding these positions, for what it's worth; but then, I'd rather nobody held them. They are, as I understand it, pretty much the positions that President Obama ran on in many but not all cases, however. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
OK, Bob, obviously there is no way I can make my position clear to you. I've tried and it just doesn't make it. I'm afraid we'll have to leave it at that. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I've very sorry, Mike. I suspect I'm simply dense about the business. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
....or else I'm just not clear enough in expressing my views. No problems, Bob. It even happened to cool hand Luke. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “But there is a final development that caused headaches for radical Islam — the end of the American hysteria over the legality and morality of its own antiterrorism measures. Although candidate Barack Obama was elected as the anti-Bush who promised to repeal the Republican president’s protocols and end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Obama did no such thing. He continued the Bush–Petraeus withdrawal plan in Iraq. He escalated in Afghanistan. He kept all the antiterrorism measures that he had once derided. And he expanded the Predator-drone assassination missions fivefold, while sending commandos inside Pakistan to kill — not capture or put on trial — bin Laden. He ignored most recommendations from Attorney General Eric Holder and guessed rightly that his own left-wing base would keep largely quiet. The effect was twofold. America kept up the pressure on terrorists and their supporters. And the liberal opposition to our antiterrorist policies simply evaporated once Obama became commander-in-chief. Some who once protested the removal of Saddam lauded the efforts to do the same to Qaddafi. Those who once sued on behalf of detainees at Guantanamo joined the government to ensure the Predator-drone targeted-killing program continued. The chances in 2012 that the buffoonish Michael Moore — who once praised the Iraqi insurgents — will again be feted as a guest of honor at the Democratic National Convention, as he was in 2004, or that Cindy Sheehan will grab headlines for a second time, are zero. Polls show that Obama’s America is still just as unpopular among Middle Easterners as it was under George W. Bush. But now a much different media assumes that the problem is theirs, not America’s. In this brave new world, the American liberal community is now invested in the continuance of the once-despised Bush antiterrorism program and the projection of force abroad — and has little sympathy for foreign criticism of an American president.” http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/267013/tough-times-radical-islam-victor-davis-hanson?page=2 ‘ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Very interesting article... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Mr. Davis’ prose remains lovely. Sadly, his scholarship has suffered in his shift from history to polemics. He and I do agree that President Obama was elected as an anti-Bush President. I do not remember him promising to do anything like such a sweeping thing as Mr, Davis ascribes to him “to repeal the Republican president’s protocols and end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq[.]” Indeed this was one of the early liberal bones of contention not only with him, but with Hilary Clinton as well. Neither candidate promised immediate withdrawal from Iraq; and Mr. Obama promised not only an extension of the conflict there but also a refocusing of the war in Afghanistan as well and a possible focus on Pakistan. Mr. Davis is not talking about the same history to I was paying attention to when it went around the first time. His continuation of the Bush timetable was upsetting to many Democrats at the time, and remains so today. If the war in Afghanistan had been pushed to an appropriate conclusion the the first place, it is indeed possible that the whole question of any activity in Iraq would have been moot in the first place. It is not Mr. Obama who made the mess in the first place; it is merely Mr. Obama whose job it became to clean it up. I have less liking for the anti-terrorism measures, I suspect, than Mr. Davis. I am disgusted against them now and was disgusted against them when they were passed with the inexcusable help of democrats during the administration of President Bush Minimus. Mr. Davis points out that President Obama once derided these measures, accurately enough, but fails to report that his attempts to roll them back were blocked at every possible point by the Republicans in both the Senate and in the Congress; and that the situation at the time was one in which a super-majority of 60 votes was needed to get anything past the rules of the Senate. That President Obama got as much by as he did was remarkable. That he didn’t push harder on many issues was to my mind worthy of a great deal of criticism. The issues that Mr. Davis mentions would be among them. It should be noted, however, that Mr. Davis at no point suggests that he was sad Mr. Obama had failed to get these measures repealed. Mr. Davis’ general political position would, in fact, suggest otherwise; that he, like many of his right wing confederates of both parties are quite happy that these repressive measures remain in place. I am, of course, happy to be shown to be wrong about this point, not only about Mr. Davis, but about the stances of many of my Right wing friends, who criticize President Obama for his terrible failure to get these laws repealed, and yet seem only too happy to have these same laws remain on the books themselves. Similar points should be raised about Predator drone missions, while have killed a great number of folks in Pakistan this year, and the mission to raid the Bin Laden compound. Folks on the right have been pushing for this sort of thing for ten years or more; when they are accomplished by a centrist President — nominally a Democrat — the stampede of switching positions is as loud as it was among Stalinists in 1941 when the Germans invaded Russia, and all of a sudden the Germans suddenly turned from Good Guys to Bad Guys. Some of us Left wing Democrats don’t keep quiet about things like Civil Rights, Human Rights and torture. Not when the violations are from the Right or the Left or the Center. Sorry to break stereotype, but I do that sometimes. I still hate torture, and I still want civil trials, and I still think that the place for criminals, if they’re convicted, is in jail, not on some sort of indefinite detention. Fighting terrorists shouldn’t turn us into terrorists. Thank you, Walt Kelly. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So does killing unarmed terrorists turn us into terrorists, murderers or both, Bob? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Yes, Mike, probably both. It does now, and it did then. Democrat, Republican, left or right really doesn't have all that much to do with it. Some of them may have thought of themselves as terrorists. I know that I thought of them that way. (If we're talking about Osama Bin Laden, that is.) I suspect that many of them thought of themselves otherwise, and would have bristled at the characterization. If we could have gotten beyond our mutual loathing, them for the West and we for them, then we might have managed to call each other names here and learned something from each other. Possibly I'm hoping for too much. As for Kadaffi, I don't think he's particularly worse than characters we've supported in the past. The notion of Chiang Kai Shek as other than a gangster seems low comedy to me, for example, also the Brothers Diem in Viet Nam Del Sud and the various rulers we've supported through Central and South America — none of them seem to have been particularly wonderful people, and some of them have been owned outright by corporate interests including the mafia, as might be the case with Batista. Put them on top of a large amount of oil, and the game seems to change a bit. A different set of rules seems to apply, and I can't say that I really understand exactly what they are as yet. This seems to work for both Republican and Democratic administrations. The only way that I can figure to change the situation is to get the oil out of the equation. There will still be scarce resources to fight about, and they will include food and water, I suspect, in the near future, unless we can get the power situation (the foot-pounds sort of power is the sort I'm talking about here) worked out first. That may be an over-long answer, Mike; but then the question seemed deceptively simple, and I thought you deserved my best attempt at an answer and not a brush off or a sarcastic response. If I'd taken more time, it would have been shorter, but I probably wouldn't have been able to complete it. For some reason, I'm quite tired these days. All my best. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
An additional point, that I should have mentioned above. I believe that the blame falls upon the administration here, and not the line troops, who were put into a position where they did what they needed to do, and where they did it well. I congratulate them on a mission well done. Placed in a situation where they were required to kill or allow their friends to be killed, they could scarcely in conscience do otherwise. And that doesn't even begin to consider the notion of their own lives being put at risk, and their own political views and their personal values and a whole host of other factors that are very important indeed. Responsibility begins at the top. That's true in this administration as it was true in prior administrations. In past administrations, however, responsibility seems to have been apportioned legally at the bottom, and very little, if any made it up the chain of command. Perhaps we can change that in this situation and consider it for the prior situations as well. I think it unfortunate these events are likely to be seen as a coup for the country. I find it ironic that the Right is in the position of having to attack these events, because they seem to be the fulfillment of a long cherished Right Wing dream of glory and retribution, and such actions have been called for by the right wing many times in the past, including by Ministers such as Pat Robertson in slightly different contexts (Hugo Chavez, wasn't it?). The exclamations of shock seem a touch hollow, though from my point of view entirely justified. We need to repeal The PATRIOT ACT, which does not help the cause of freedom in this country. It is unfortunate that, as near as I can understand it, the actions that President Obama undertook were not illegal, since Osama Bin Laden was not a foreign head of state, nor an American citizen, and all that was required was an Intelligence Finding letter signed by The President. I believe that it's protocol for the letter to be reviewed by the appropriate congressional and senatorial committees, but I am not sure of that. Legal does not make it moral or even palatable. It certainly took substantial risks with our relationship with a nuclear country. Not good. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Placed in a situation where they were required to kill or allow their friends to be killed, they could scarcely in conscience do otherwise. And that doesn't even begin to consider the notion of their own lives being put at risk, and their own political views and their personal values and a whole host of other factors that are very important indeed. A nice attempt, Bob, but you know as well as everyone else that's not what happened there. Bin Laden was to be killed....and he was. Period. Was it legal? Well, I guess that depends on whether you call assassination legal or not. Is assassination legal if it is not performed on the head of a country? For anyone expressing outrage against torture, they should be perfectly livid over this one. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: The only thing I've really had time to follow on this issue was the President's speech and a bit of media commentary immediately following the speech. And what you're claiming, Mike, doesn't jibe with what I heard from them. Do you have any sources available confirming your claim? Or should we, instead, take it as your opinion? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, Ron, of course I must present it as opinion and conjecture on my part, since I wasn't there to hear Obama give the order. I base that opinion on fact and a little experience. First, Bin Laden was unarmed. There was a claim, offered quite weakly, that he may have made a threatening gesture which required him being shot. His wife literally charged one of the soldiers. She was shot in the leg. Bin Laden was shot in the head. These were not trigger-happy rookies on some small town police force. They were trained professionals. They shot an unarmed old man in the head, killing him instantly. `You prefer to believe that they did that on their own initiative, without orders from above? No, I don't think so, either. Opinion, yes, but I believe the opinion has the proper foundation. The alternative is to believe that several highly trained Navy Seals could not subdue an unarmed man in a confined area without shooting him in the head. If they had wanted to take him alive, they could have easily. Instead he was shot in the one area which had the greatest probability of causing death. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
What part of me saying that the president should be brought up on war crimes charges jibes with the notion of me mot being livid, Mike? I can be livid at legal activities as well as illegal activities, and frequently am. The fact that I think that the President's activities were legal doesn't mean that I support them. I offered support to the troops, not the mission. I criticized the President for his moral position and not his legal position, which by U.S. law, as I understand it, is solid, and which by international law is not solid, as I understand it. This would, as I understand your party's position, generally place him solidly in your court. He was acting in the interests of the United States, and not necessarily in accord with the law of the international community. The Right Wing thought this position was swell when it came to heading off threats that it saw to the potential security of the country when President Bush acted and changed the long-standing U.S. Policy as not being the party to initiate first strike or unilateral strike. I thought this was wrong then. I still think it wrong. I think President Obama was wrong. He was also operating within U.S. law. My acknowledgement of that is an acknowledgement of reality. I don't need to be happy about reality to acknowledge it. All I have to be is practical. I haven't stepped off any bridges yet, and I still believe that I can't flap my arms and fly, much as I'd wish otherwise. It is not "a good try" to suggest that the President acted legally in accord with U.S. law. As far as I know, it's the truth. I don't have to like it, and it is certainly not in conflict with my stand against torture. As for somebody's ability to call their shots on a moving target in a combat situation well enough to hit somebody in the leg and somebody else in the head, I simply don't know. I haven't shot a gun in close to fifty years. I have no idea what weapons were being used. I have no idea what the rules of engagement were. I have no idea what the actual perceptions of the levels of threat were among the shooters in the room at the time. If one person had been advancing on the shooters rapidly at the time, that certainly would have made things more exciting. I don't know to what extent that would have effected the shooting skill or judgement of other in the room. With some people, it would have had a disorganizing effect — most police officers, for example, would have spiked an adrenaline rush that training would only have partially compensated for. I like to think that S.F. candidates would be differently selected, but I don't know; and I do know that some people would only get more settled in such as situation — folks with a touch of psychopathy, for example, would only start to begin to feel normal at that point. Nevertheless, hitting a moving target is hard, and Osama Bin Laden did not want to be taken alive. I can tell you with absolute certainty, though, that I don't know, and I don't have enough data to even come close to knowing. I don't expect you to substitute my estimation of the situation for yours, but you might understand why I continue to feel uncertain. Doesn't mean that I approve of the President's actions; I don't. Doesn't mean that I approve of torture. I don't. Nor does it mean that you suddenly feel that torture and assassination should be dropped from the range of U.S. foreign policy, either, does it? Not unless you actually say so. And certainly not unless you say so about such actions taken by both political parties, past and present. [This message has been edited by Ron (05-14-2011 07:24 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It is not "a good try" to suggest that the President acted legally in accord with U.S. law. As far as I know, it's the truth. I don't have to like it, and it is certainly not in conflict with my stand against torture. I understand, Bob. You are hedging every statement with an out, such as "As far as I know..". Your paragraph about what may or may not have happened is also filled with "I don't know"'s.....and that's acceptable. No, you don't know and neither do I. The difference between us is that I am willing to use some type of reasoning to deduce what may be considered close to the truth and you prefer to simply state "I don't know" and move on. I don't blame you for doind so, since the other way points to assassination and Obama breaking the law. Interestingly enough, in the middle of the "don't knows", you state Osama Bin Laden did not want to be taken alive.. Of course there is no way you can know that. Think of the pulpit he could have had as a prisoner and the mayhem that could have resulted. (I feel that Obama may have thought the same thing, hence the desire not to have it happen). You must be arriving at that conclusion by the same conjecture you refuse to use on the events in the killing of Bin Laden |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Which U.S. law do you assert the President has broken, Mike? The President is forbidden from Assassination of foreign heads of state. Bin Laden does not and never has fallen into that category. I haven't shied away from saying that The President was wrong. I don't now. I ask you to specify which U.S. law he has broken. I further ask that you tell us why you find anything wrong with it, since the man was clear that he was going to pursue the war into Pakistan during his campaign. This was one of the reasons that many liberals were upset by his stance. Both his and Hilary's, actually, despite the retroactive attempt to rewrite history made by the Republicans since that time. This is one of the reasons why I've been calling the man Republican Lite since his election. Hadn't you noticed? And one of the reasons why I've been upset with his human rights stance as well. You should understand why I'm upset. What puzzles me is why you're upset, since what he's doing is just about all a good republican could ask for as far as foreign policy goes? Active, nasty and belligerent in the right oil rich areas of the world. The only thing that would seen to be bothersome is that he hasn't alienated the rest of the world in the process, and there have been some precedents for that in the past. Republicans don't actually have to turn the world against them and against the United States as well. Democrats can do that as well, as LBJ well demonstrated. So, what are the U.S. laws that you assert the President has violated, Mike? I don't like the killing, but with an intelligence finding signed by the president, my understanding is that it is legal so long as it isn't a foreign head of state. I await your correction. What U.S. law do you say he has violated? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, is it your assertion that one may order the murder of another, as long as he is not a head of state, without breaking the law?? Heck, why didn't we just kill Capone, instead of getting him on tax evasion? He was responsible of murders, extortion, and all kinds of nasty things. Why am I upset about it? Did I say I was? I shed no tears over Bin Laden and, truth be known, I'm glad he is dead. My beef is not with that. My beef is with sanctimonious people who claim waterboarding is torture, condemn a president who allowed it, berate an entire political party over it...and have nothing to say about a president who orders murder. My beef is with people who claim everyone is entitled to due process of law and then have nothing to say about a president who condemns a man to death with no due process whatsoever. My beef is with people who allow their political affiliations to dictate their morality, with those who condemn waterboarding and condone homicide. That's where my beef lies, sir. I've heard of no one who died from waterboarding but I can name at least one who died from a bullet in the head. If you want to give Obama a pass for Bin Laden, that's fine by me and I'll applaud along with you...but you lose the moral right to complain about Bush, the Republicans, and Gitmo. You don't get it both ways... |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. The men had cameras on their helmets sending it back live to command, (and I recognized a few of those at HQ in the picture). You think if, as professionals, they thought they would be up on charges for shooting an unarmed man they would have pulled the trigger? There’s an actual scene in the old “World At War” series that was run on PBS decades ago where an officer is talking to men about to land on a Japanese held island: “Let me repeat what the general said. If you have to run any kind of risk to get a prisoner, don’t get em!” Bin Laden was dead the moment he didn’t pop up naked with his hands in the air. It’s the hypocrisy that’s risible. . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I wasn't there, either, Mike. However, I was there (so to speak) when the President told us what the mission parameters were. Capture if possible, kill if there is resistance. I see no reason to believe that wasn't the truth. Of course, some clarification of "resistance" might be justified. On American soil, for example, we don't expect the police to fire unless they're in fear for their own safety. Should we hold Navy Seals to the same standard? I tend to think probably not, but I'm open to argument on that. I suspect that moving an intractable prisoner across foreign soil covertly might be difficult? I think John is right. If bin Laden had offered no resistance, he likely would still be alive. quote: Actually, Mike, I think there is a way Bob could reasonably know that. You and me, too. We can listen to what bin Laden has told us in that regard. He claimed, repeatedly and quite vociferously I believe, that he would never be taken alive. Again, I see no reason to believe that wasn't the truth. Still, Mike, in spite of the justifications, I see your point. And I think it revolves around earlier discussions we've had as to whether terrorists should be seen as criminals or as enemy combatants. If bin Laden was simply a criminal, like your Al Capone analogy might suggest, our government should have followed procedures and tried to have the man arrested and extradited. There's a few potential sticklers, like the difference between a serial killer and a mass murderer, and of course Pakistan's willingness or ability to arrest and extradite, but those are details in my opinion, not foundational issues. On the other hand, if bin Laden was an enemy combatant? That's clearly a horse of an entirely different color. If we follow that road a little farther it will take us to the detainees in Gitmo. If we see them as criminals they clearly should be given their day in court. Or be released for lack of evidence. The alternative, however, isn't to see them as enemy combatants, Mike, but rather to see them as former enemy combatants; i.e., prisoners of war. That, too, is a horse of a different color. If a handful of Navy Seals started shooting Gitmo prisoners in the head because they "resisted" their continued detention, Mike, I think just about everyone would be outraged. Their situations simply are not comparable to bin Laden's situation. As prisoners, whether criminal or combatant, they are entitled to humane treatment. Not because they deserve it, but because WE deserve to be a humane people who do what is right even when it costs us to do so. Torture isn't about "them" and never has been. It's about us. For what it's worth, I still prefer to see domestic terrorists as criminals. To me, bin Laden was indeed no different than Al Capone. And so, to answer your original question, Mike, I suspect we would have killed Capone had he resisted during any of his arrest attempts. I don't know what level of resistance it would have taken for the police to feel justified putting a bullet in Capone's head, but I have no doubt such a level existed. As it clearly did with bin Laden. Whether Capone or bin Laden, you might well find me arguing against the use of excessive or unnecessary force. Or not, depending on circumstances and the safety of others present. What you would never find me arguing against, however, is humane treatment once Capone, bin Laden, or the prisoners at Gitmo were taken into custody. Killing someone because you must is not the same as torturing someone because you want to. Accepting the former doesn't mean I have to accept the latter. That's not hypocrisy, guys. It's simple logic. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, Mike, I think there is a way Bob could reasonably know that. Simply because he had said that? If you had a nickel for every criminal who had said that and then surrendered without a fight, you would be rich. You use the word reason? Why, then, has no reason been applied to what may have happened in that room? You speak of resistance without even knowing what that resistance was. You apply that same unknown resistance to an unarmed Capone being shot dead, still not knowing what that resistance was. As a matter of fact, no one has even expounded that point. I read somewhere that Bin Laden may have made a move to resist.....that's about it. Reporters don't even touch it. Doesn't that strike you as a bit strange, Ron? Forgive me, but I believe that you, Bob and all the others know exactly what happened and it had nothing to do with Bin Laden's supposed unknown resistance. Paint it any way you like. I'm not going to believe that either one of you believe that Bin Laden was executed for that reason. btw..."Killing someone because you must" is indeed hypocricy, in this case. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
At the risk of boring you with repetition, Mike, and apparently John as well, exactly what part of my statement that I think the President should be charged with war crimes sounds to you like I think he is faultless? I also said that I think that President Bush should be as well. Is there something inconsistent about that? quote: I take it that you can't find any particular United States law that the man did in fact break, then, Mike? My understanding is that the President can sign an intelligence finding that allows for such murders, yes, though not of heads of state. I don't believe that this is in like with international law. I don't think this is moral, and I don't agree with it, though my understanding is that you do. quote: There is a domestic law against murder, Mike. Several of them, in fact. The government occasionally attempts to get around them. The result tends to be mixed, however, and domestically the government tries to avoid such things. Both ends of the political spectrum have martyrs to such governmental "accidents". Some of them, perhaps all of them, may actually be accidents, for that matter; but you won't convince large parts of the population of that. So, in short, Mr. Capone was a citizen, and he was living in the United States. I think that's the difference. quote: You speak as though your beef is with that. quote: Again, Mike, what part about suggesting trial for war crimes for President Obama as well as President Bush don't you understand? I don't know that President Obama has personally ordered Waterboarding, by the way. Perhaps you have forgotten the CIA people who demanded and got step by step directives to do waterboarding from the white house in the presence of the President during the last year or so of the last administration? I would forget it if I could. As I recall, we discussed it in these pages. quote: Do you mean a trial? I would wish that a trial was necessary for such a thing, and that this sort of due process was required for any death sentence. You have not been paying attention to the various provisions of The PATRIOT ACT and some of the national security laws, have you? quote: Got to say, I don't think those folks are real swell either, whoever the heck you might be talking about.... quote: Why would you have a beef with the GIs who fought the Nazis and the Japanese in World War II and the ones who fought the Communists in Korea and Vietnam, Mike? You fought in Vietnam yourself. You were outraged when our guys were waterboarded to get them to confess to crimes they didn't commit then. And rightfully so. quote: But you, yourself, were just saying that you have no beef with homicide, if you're murdering the people your party wants killed, weren't you? My head is spinning here. quote: And where have you checked? quote: Do you mean Osama Bin Laden? I think the murder was wrong, but legal. You tend to the murder was right, and would have supported it if it had been done by a Republican President. If I have the matter understood correctly. You may also think the murder was illegal under the assumption that U.S. domestic law somehow applies on foreign sovereign territory. And of course I am assuming that you meant none of the above to apply to me personally. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
At least the cartoonists got it right...    |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I think the murder was wrong, but legal. An incredible statement, Bob. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: quote: If I don't know what resistance was offered, Mike, why would you pretend that you do? If you are upset that bin Laden was killed, we can talk about how much resistance would be necessary to justify the military actions that were taken. If, as you've said, you are only concerned with the seeming hypocrisy of accepting the death of a fugitive versus the torture of helpless prisoners, I'm not entirely sure how the resistance bin Laden offered is relevant? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Ah, Mike, perhaps you suffer under the illusion that legality and rightness are identical. I believe that notion is indeed incredible. Also frequently wrong. Simply because the Stamp Act, for example, was legal, didn't make it right. Simply because debtor's prisons were legal didn't make them right. Simply because slavery was legal didn't make it right. Simply because murder is legal doesn't make it right. In your own set of values, simply because murder is illegal, doesn't make it wrong, though I would disagree. For example, you could well be in favor of killing a convicted murderer in a non-death penalty state, right? That is, you would be in favor of something that was, by definition, murder and illegal, and would insist that it was right. I may have you wrong on this, of course, but I think not. You probably wouldn't ACT on it, but you would refrain because punishment or essential indifference would intervene between your action and your sense of what was right. I think, of course. Not so incredible, in other words. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. told a Senate committee Wednesday that the shooting of Osama bin Laden was “justified as an act of national self-defense.” Well, Ron, it would appear that Holder is not even carrying on the illusion that Bin Laden resisted or that the SEAL's lives were in danger. He speaks of "national self-defense", which means that the orders were to kill Bin Laden, regardless. That phrase of acting in "national self-defense" can really open up a bucket of worms, can't it?? Does it have anything to do with the criticism of Bush and Gitmo? Yes, to me, it does. I wonder what the reaction would be if this were Bush ordering the hit on Obama and shooting him, unarmed? Somehow I think it might be a little different...so what's new? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Simply because murder is legal doesn't make it right. That's the point, Bob. Murder is not legal. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: quote: This was an operation that was fundamentally pursued as a law-enforcement action. The 'decision' to shoot Bin Laden was indeed no 'decision' that was made pre-meditatively -- but one of the rigors of training CQB practitioners have drilled into their heads -- shoot/don't shoot -- it's a split second choice made based on the behaviors of the perps. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The 'decision' to shoot Bin Laden was indeed no 'decision' that was made pre-meditatively Still have more swampland for sale.... "Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. told a Senate committee Wednesday that the shooting of Osama bin Laden was “justified as an act of national self-defense.” |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Reb, there are more holes in your articles than in bin Laden's head... When bin Laden refused to surrender and placed a woman in front of him as a shield (coward!) a shot to his head ended the short standoff. First, I have read many accounts of the events there and I didn't see one which spoke of bin laden placing a woman in front of him as a shield. He wasn't even armed. Second, would a shooter go for a man's head who was using a woman as a shield? Wyatt Earp died a long time ago. I have a little experience in that, too, and I can assure you he wouldn't. "The guy either had a weapon, was going for a weapon or was otherwise doing something he shouldn't have been doing," Wasdin said. "That's why he got shot." He doesn't know? What does "otherwise doing something he shouldn't have been doing" mean? See anything there about using a human shield? These articles are for CYA purposes only. I'll refer you once again to Holder's statement. At least he was honest about it. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: I'm frankly, not buying, that you're not buying it. You protest too much m'deer deer... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I gave clear reasons for not buying it. If you do, that's up to you. Have fun with it. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
No Mike, you merely pointed to an erroneous account of, what was clearly initially reported of Bin Laden's wife being used as a human shield, to attempt to discredit Sgt. French's (and my) point that CQB training is (A)a police tactic, and (B) an integral part of Seal Team Six's training, and (C)That the shoot/no shoot decision is split second choice not made consciously by the operator but as a matter of training based on reactions to the behaviors of the targets. And, you're too smart to think that I would think that you don't get that. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I won't ping pong it, reb. Go with it any way you want. I'm satisfied with my reasoning and logic, certified by Holder's own admission. It really doesn't matter to me if you see it that way or not. Peace. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
If Holder's statement is an 'admission' Mike then you are giving very high marks to the Obama administration for being extremely competent in planning and executing the mission while you are negating the training and competency of the troops on the ground. Sure you want to take that approach Mike? Holder's statement is only relative to the decision to take action with Seal Team Six instead of making another drone strike, or do nothing at all. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Your conclusion does not follow, Mike. It requires a wild leap. This does not mean that orders may not have been given to kill rather than to capture the man. I have no idea. I have a dislike for the mission itself, which makes the outcome a likely one, doesn't it? I would be against the mission either way. It appears that you are only against the mission and the death of Bin Laden because it makes the possibility of the reelection of President Obama more likely rather than because it is morally objectionable. It is morally objectionable in my opinion. It is not, as I understand it, illegal by United States law, even if the President had specifically ordered the seals to go in and shoot the man down where he stood because he felt — as President of the United States — that the man presented a danger to the welfare of the country. That, as I understand the present United States law, is enough to take the shooting out of the realm of murder. I happen to think of it as murder, personally, but then nobody consulted me about the matter; and my point of view doesn't carry any legal weight. You don't think of it as murder, for that matter, near as I can tell. [Edited - Ron] Am I missing something here? I would not have pulled the trigger. I am against this sort of thing. One of the reasons I'm not very good at martial arts, despite my enjoyment of them, is that I'm unwilling to break anybody in any kind of a serious and definitive way. The best I can do is restraining people. [Edited - Ron] What am I missing here? I feel like I loose in a world of fun-house mirrors... I suspect that the rage on the Right here is that President Obama has done something typical of the Republicans and is getting the sort of benefit that Republicans typically get from this sort of move, undeserved adulation and support. The right seems to find this unbearable. They find it so unbearable, in fact, they thety find themselves criticizing actions that they would otherwise applaud I think the rage is because the President has increased his electoral odds for 2012 more than anything else; and the Right has gone into a completely spastic and disorganized response;. I should only be so lucky as to hope that the Right would develop an aversion to unnecessary war and violence at the behest of any political party. I may call what happened to Osama Bin Laden murder; and so may much of the rest of the world. I haven't seen Mike specify which law in the United States says it is, though, and that The President hasn't followred legal process in having the man killed. That was the purpose of Mr. Holder's statement, by the way. It lays the justification for the legal process by a finding might be issued against Osama bin Laden, and I do believe it takes President Obama off the hook for the Charge of Murder. I don't like it, but it is to be expected; and I don't expect that it carries actual moral weight. For the legality, it is enough, I'm afraid. [This message has been edited by Ron (05-15-2011 10:17 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I think the moral choices are pretty clear Bob. Drone strike=certain death or disfigurement of any-one in the target zone -- guilty or not. (not to mention the destruction of valuable intelligence). Doing nothing means letting the suspects go free -- which is immoral. Sending in the Seals, while risky, SAVED lives, and gained us valuable intelligence (not to mention a nifty porn stash) to put the rest of Al Quaida on defense. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
even if the President had specifically ordered the seals to go in and shoot the man down where he stood because he felt — as President of the United States — that the man presented a danger to the welfare of the country. That, as I understand the present United States law, is enough to take the shooting out of the realm of murder. So you feel that the only way bin laden would not have been a present danger to the United States was for him to be killed. Having him captured and imprisoned would not have achieved that same result?? As far as taking it out of the realm of murder, you don't even do that yourself, having called it murder on more than one occasion. I will give you the same message as I gave LR....peace. Enjoy whatever conclusions you wish to draw. I'm satisfied with mine. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Mike, if you have a quarrel with United States law, that's fine with me; I've had them on occasion myself. I keep mentioning The Patriot Act in this regard, for example. Don't confuse my opinions with what is apparently the Law of the land. A Presidential Finding seems to be all the excuse that a President needs to bump off a non-citizen. If that's not the case, and I really hope it isn't the case, I would be seriously pleased to find this out. I would be much happier with the state of affairs in our country. You may be satisfied with your conclusions, and I'm glad that you are, but I don't understand them. I mean they make no logical sense to me, and I would welcome anybody who would be willing to lay them out for me in a way that actually makes the connections between one point and the next point clear, so I could follow the thread of what you're saying. I don't think that an attempt to capture Bin Laden would have been successful if it had been limited to that option only. That's why I am against the very notion of the mission; it almost of necessity would have led to a firefight. You shouldn't plan on going into a firefight you think you may lose. It's unfair to the troops involved. Having been a trooper yourself, I can't imagine you feeling good about being tasked that way. Of course I think it was murder. Haven't I made myself clear about that? Haven't I also made myself clear that the law says I'm on the losing side of that discussion, and that my disagreement is spitting into the wind. If you've got a quarrel, take it up with the various laws governing intelligence operations. You should remember, though, that you'd be putting yourself on my side when you do so, and you'd be leveling a lot of criticism against prior administrations as well. [Edited - Ron That's what I think. [This message has been edited by Ron (05-15-2011 11:47 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear L.R., I tend to agree with you broadly. I am not certain, however, that doing something increased the liklihood of a good outcome overall. Certainly it may have; but it's difficult to tell to what extent the death of Bin Laden under these circumstances served as a recruiting tool for the organization. How good was that porn collection, anyway? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Difficult to gauge Bob, but if one needs porn, Avena, and vaseline? Not that there's anything wrong with that. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. So he may have thrown a wife instead of a grenade; I can understand why they shot him . . . . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Nice, John! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
So, Mike, you are perhaps suggesting that Osama thought he'd pulled the pin on his wife before he threw her at the Seals; and he was surprised when she didn't go off like a grenade? Or that he looked down and found that he still had the thumb drive in his hand and said something like, Drat!, I knew I should have put in more training with the guys! In looking over the Google reports, though, a lot of folks seem to be talking about him as a martyr to the cause. We can make our bad taste jokes, but they don't wipe away the perceptions of those who think the man a martyr. We have no idea how those perceptions will affect others world wide. I don't know why it should come as a huge surprise that there was a stash of porn. There's porn in lots of houses, even in places who preach against it. All that does is make clear that Bin Laden — if the porn was his at all — was a human being, and that we've been distorting some things about him, probably unconsciously, for our own purposes. He was a human being if the porn wasn't his as well. We have been making him a larger evil than he was to serve our own purposes. I have to wonder where our search for our next enemy will take us, what form that next enemy will take, and what portion of our humanity we will decide we need to pay to keep from addressing ourselves in the process. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
We have been making him a larger evil than he was to serve our own purposes. We made him a larger evil than he was, Bob? You mean we shouldn't call a murderer of 3000 civilians a possible porn addict because that could be unfair ?? I personally don't think evil gets much larger than him. We didn't make him a mass murderer to serve our own purposes, Bob. He made himself the mass murderer. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
As far as evils go, Osama was sufficient to the day. As far as evils go, he wasn't even on a national scale. He was not a national state. He was a really nasty activist charismatic preacher on the very far right wing of his religion, like Pat Robertson on steroids with full time roid rage. Robertson was always telling us to go off and bomb country X or murder leader Y because he didn't approve of their approach to things. Osama actually pushed to get people to do the sorts of things that Robertson was talking about. Robertson got a fair number of votes when he ran for President. Was Osama worth throwing out the Posse Comitatus laws? Was he worth The PATRIOT ACT? Was he worth the coming of the security state? Was he worth the Iraq War with more than 3000 Americans killed and estimates in the multiples of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by Lancet? Was he worth warrantless wiretaps? Not as far as I'm concerned. It took good old American ingenuity to do those things. I would say that our reaction to Osama was worse, in the same way that some folks are killed by their own allergic reactions to things that need not be so serious to other people. I'm that way with Bee Stings myself; my body over-reacts. My throat closes up. My blood pressure goes through the roof. Some people react that way to peanuts. I remind you, Mike, that you react that way to Peanut Farmers on occasion. Heaven knows why you haven't stroked out at the thought by now. I have an aunt whose allergic. Some folks feel that way about the entire state of Massachusetts. Terrorists depend on over-reaction to demonstrate to their supporters what wretches their enemies are. They pray for disproportionate responses. They need them to function. That's one of the reasons why asymmetrical warfare works, and why insurgents use it as a tactic of choice. It makes folks on the Right think of Jimmy Carter. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'm that way with Bee Stings myself; my body over-reacts. My throat closes up. My blood pressure goes through the roof. Some people react that way to peanuts. I remind you, Mike, that you react that way to Peanut Farmers on occasion. Actually, Bob, that's not an accurate statement. I doubt you will find anywhere that I reacted to Carter with anger or physical suffering. I have simply stated that he was one of the worst presidents we have ever had.....not in anger but as a simple observation. Getting mad at him would be like getting mad at the bugs I'm paid to eradicate. Being alive is not their fault. They are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time...as was Carter. The Oval Office was not the right place for him. The peanut farm was. With Obama, though, I do get angry. Although I stipulate that he is on the way to knocking Carter off the pedestal of being the worst president to occupy the position, he IS a danger, where Carter was not. Not knowing what to do, Carter simply did very little, whereas, with Obama, not knowing what to do makes him do all sorts of things and most of them wrong. Were he not backed by two degenerates more concerned with their own personal power over what is right for the country, he would have not gotten so far as to cause the damage he is causing. Jimmy? He was simply a lightweight btw...as far as creating bad guys to push one's own agenda, Obama is a master of that craft, as he is proving daily. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The distraction seemed to get you off on a tangent talking about Jimmy Carter. My fault, there. I don't think of myself as a terrorist, yet I seem to have gotten an out of proportion response. I mention Jimmy Carter, and you sink your teeth into President Obama. But it was sort of that way with Osama; he attacked with World trade center, we attacked Afghanistan — fair enough, I suppose, though we had other choices — and then we attacked an uninvolved third country and then our own constitutional civil protections. I wish that Osama would have acted as much against his self-interests. Say, if we attacked Osama, then he would attack other people who agreed with him and other potential allies, alienating his friends and essentially poisoning his own wells. I find it hard to imagine him doing so, though. We have different nominees for worst President. I'd be more interested in talking about best Presidents at some point, though. Perhaps in another thread. Talking about worst seems a way of looking for unpleasantness. I still think of Washington as the best because of his understanding of the need to step down and limit his own term of power. Cincinnatus was much on his mind; that, and the notion of service to his country. I don't know how many presidents since have had that foremost on their minds, and how many have had instead the need to achieve and wield power for party and personal gain. Eisenhower might have had the notion of service in mind, as might have Truman. It could be an interesting discussion. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Correct Michael. Obama is the master at 'looping': choose your target, create a negative environment surrounding the target by lying about a situation and then making false claims about the target. Then when the target protests, turn around and point to the protesting target and then frame the reaction as 'evidence' that his initial negative assertions were correct. "What do these people want? I've just about completed the fence (uh...no you haven't), the border is more secure than it's ever been (uh...no it's not), I've given them everything they've asked for (uh...no you haven't), and still they aren't happy (correct on that score), what will they want next? A moat? A moat with alligators? hahahahaha." So when people protest that they aren't happy with the border situation, he says, "see, I told you they are never satisfied, no matter how much I do for them". By the way, I'd go with anything that works, either restore the funding that was stopped and really complete the border fence, place the troops on the border, enforce the current immigration laws or, yes, even build a damn moat with alligators. Throw some crocodiles in there too for good measure. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
How would that apply to the Bin Laden situation, Denise? I guess I don't see that. Could you show how your point applies to the Bin Laden situation? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It doesn't, Bob. It applies to Michael's comment about Obama being a master at his craft. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
....and my comment came from yours, Bob, about using overreaction as a weapon. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I was talking about Bin Laden, Mike, more or less the subject of the thread. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, you were talking about using a boogy man to advance one's own agenda. Check it.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I'm quite sure that you've been trying to be open and civil recently, Mike, and I appreciate that effort. Jimmy Carter and exterminating bugs felt a bit over the top. Perhaps I may be the only person who felt that way. Even so, it felt a bit over the top. Responses that I can make to this postat this time are simp[ly not approprtiate for this forum and that's not all right for me right now. Later. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Using bug extermination bothered you, Bob? That's simple to change. I was referring to something being in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are any number of ways to make that point without using bugs. I simply used them because that's my profession. Change it a boy being in the girl's locker room or a pork sandwich being at a bar mitzvah if you find that more palatable |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
I can't believe that nobody has started a thread on Obama's wonderful peformance in Europe last week, and particulary the contrast between him and those oiks Trump and Palin. I could say an awful lot more about this, including making the observation that the US arguably has the best President ever in Obama, and potentially the destruction of the world in Palin - and yet, incredibly, there seem to be people out there who have difficulty seeing this. I watched Obama's speech in Westminster Hall last week, and after 20 minutes I was shaking my head in wonderment that Trump and others actually seriously tried to suggest that this patently sincere, honest and intelligent man would be in any way deceptive over a matter like his place of birth. Unbelievable. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, I was going to mention how he made himself look ridiculous toasting the Queen and how he wrote down the wrong year while signing the register at Westminster Abbey but why bother? Referring to how dumb he is not to even be able to write down the correct year reflects not only on him but on the U.S. for electing such a buffoon. Yes, of course, had Bush done that, it would have been front page news on the lamestream media, complete with videos, as was the case when Bush walked to the wrong door to leave a room, but with the hands-off Obama approach, it didn't even merit a comment by the three major news agencies.....so what's new? I was also going to refer to him selling Israel down the river, but why bother there, either? He made it so obvious that everyone knows it. Even his own party didn't stand behind him on that one. We can also talk about the fiasco Libya has become under his direction but why bother there, either? You can read about it in any paper? You're surprised no one here has written about Obama? There's no reason to. We are too embarrassed for, and of, him to bother. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
"Yes, of course, had Bush done that, it would have been front page news on the lamestream media, complete with videos, as was the case when Bush walked to the wrong door to leave a room, but with the hands-off Obama approach, it didn't even merit a comment by the three major news agencies" I think the only thing that's new is that the rest of the world are becoming aware of just how illogically and perversely partisan a certain segment of US society has become. Sure, there are many people who disagree with Obama's policies, and disagree politely and with cogent argument - that's only to be expected in any democratic society. But there's also a sizeable chuck of society who seem hell bent on rabid hatred at any cost. That's kind of sad - sad for society I mean, not for Obama. Why does the press ignore faux pas by Obama when they didn't do the same for Bush? Easy. They respect him, they know full well he isn't a buffoon like Bush, who was just asking to be teased all the time. Obama has a gravitas, humility and diplomatic ability which has been sadly lacking in many US politicians for a long time, and is absent entirely from pop-idol Palin for instance. The press don't focus on silly all too human foibles unless they sense they are dealing with someone who is weak. For instance, morally weak like Clinton, intellectually weak like Bush, or morally, intellectually and politically weak like Palin. In Obama the press know full well they are dealing with a seriously great man - they are sensible enough to have figured out that by trying to ridicule him in a petty way they will just make themselves look stupid. While the press and media may be savvy, unfortunately this isn't something that a sizeable segment of the US population have figured out. Or maybe they are just blinded by Sarah's flashing smile and shark's teeth. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That's the point. He IS a buffoon, which is becoming more obvious as time goes along. You don't want to believe it....fine by me. Perhaps one day he'll run for Prime Minister of England. No doubt he can come up with a birth certificate somewhere making him eligible. Seriously, your comment about Bush can be attacked for foibles because he is weak and Obama not because he is strong is all hogwash. Foibles are foibles, no matter who makes them. The press is more than eager to point them out....not with Obama, though, or even the king of foibleland....Biden. it's all political, period. Obama is fooling less and less people all the time. I hear in Poland, they tell Obama jokes. Go figure You should realize, moonbeam, that by throwing insults and sarcasm at Palin, Bush or others. while accusing a large part of American as being simply stupid or delusional because they don't think the way you think they should feel, you are simply weakening your own creditibility. Believe what you want while sitting over there in the kingdom...toss around all of the insults you care to....just don't expect to be taken seriously. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
While his popularity with the European public remains high, his standing with the continent's political leaders may have dropped a notch. "I think they had expectations that could not be met and changes that they had anticipated that President Obama would make," said Heather Conley, director of the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. She cited Obama's failure to close the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center and his decision to increase troops in Afghanistan as disappointments in Europe. In France, there also has been some criticism of the Obama administration's involvement in the Libya bombing campaign. But when Obama met Friday on the sidelines of the G-8 summit with Nicolas Sarkozy, both leaders expressed nothing more than appreciation for their mutual efforts in Libya. And they reasserted that longtime Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi must go. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-05-27-barack-obama-europe_n.htm?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-TopStories+ %28News+-+Washington+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+ Yahoo |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Obama and humility in the same sentence, moonbeam?  Really? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Of course I wouldn't use patently sincere and honest in the same sentence either. But then I also wouldn't accept as sufficient a computer file of a document in lieu of an actual certified paper copy being presented to Congress for authentication. Such a prentation as was done would not even hold up in a oourt of law as 'best evidence'. It's absolutely laughable. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Yes humility Denise. And not grovelling humility either. Humility that speaks to the inner strength and confidence of the man. Can you see Clinton or Bush or even Reagan let alone Nixon, for instance, actually graciously thanking people at Westminster Abbey for taking the trouble to turn out to see them? And Mike, yes of course he's going to upset other politicians and leaders. He has to make hard decisions and they aren't always going to be popular. Goes with the territory. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about how he conducts himself and what he achieves. And just to squash, once again, your persistent comment that I malign Bush - I don't. I actually liked Bush - he was honest and believed sincerely in what he was doing. I just feel he was a little short on the grey cells, and a misguided all American macho type! But morally he was fine, unlike both Palin and Clinton who I dislike because I don't feel that either have that underlying bedrock of principle that both Bush and Obama have. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
they know full well he isn't a buffoon like Bush intellectually weak like Bush your persistent comment that I malign Bush - I don't. morally, intellectually and politically weak like Palin. Sarah's flashing smile and shark's teeth. One could wonder why you go to lengths to insult and malign someone not even having declared candidacy. [This message has been edited by Ron (05-30-2011 10:09 AM).] |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Mike To clarify. Yes Bush could come over as a buffoon, yes he could appear intellectually weak (though in fact I find it quite hard to believe he really is, I suspect that's more the media jumping on a perception of his own making). Yet, as I say, I find him quite likeable, because he seems sincere. Palin isn't likeable or sincere, she's a grasping, scheming, opportunistic, egocentic, power greedy, unprinciple person. And no I don't much like her, and yes, I am interested in her, just so long as there's the remotest chance of her becoming President. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: It's a vain hope, I know, but nonetheless, I sincerely hope the American voters can find less subjective criteria upon which to elect their next President? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
It's a vain hope, I know, but nonetheless, I sincerely hope the American voters can find less subjective criteria upon which to elect their next President? You posed that as a question Ron. Is that, I wonder, a kind of subliminal signal that you aren't quite sure of the correctness of the statement yourself. After all, you aren't seriously suggesting that you should choose a President based upon what he/she says they are going to do for the economy, or healthcare, or renewable energy, or the military, or public holidays, or hunting and abortion law? Or are you? When you choose an employee who has excellent qualifications for your job, you'd choose him even though you had a subjective bad feeling about him, would you? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, moonbeam if she isn't likeable or sincere and not qualified for the position why would you think she would even have the remotest chance of becoming president? She would fail on both sides of the coin so what's your concern?? Or is your concern that, based on the fact we would elect a man with no credentials at all, like Obama, we are likely to vote in anyone?? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Well, moonbeam if she isn't likeable or sincere and not qualified for the position why would you think she would even have the remotest chance of becoming president? She would fail on both sides of the coin so what's your concern?? My concern is that there are people in the US who are clearly mesmerized by her. As Rodgers said: "American culture mistakenly prizes bravado and arrogance as sure signs of leadership." She is cynically tapping into that weakness in some segments of American society and exploiting it for her own ends. This is all fine as long as the madness is confined to a small proportion of right wing delusionals. But as happened, for instance, with Hitler, the razamataz of jingoistic nationalism can easily be spread to more levelheaded people, especially when they feel vulnerable in an uncertain world where they see other powers rising to challenge them, and the importance of their country threatened. When people are scared, and, as Denise says, "suffering", that's when they are most open to the antics of "leaders" like Palin. Or is your concern that, based on the fact we would elect a man with no credentials at all, like Obama, we are likely to vote in anyone?? I have no clue as to how you figure that he had "no credentials". I can only think that your idea of "credentials" is very different to mine. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Aha, I see. You feel that there can be so many people mesmerized by her that she could be elected. According to you, then, there are so many dissatisfied people in the country that want Obama out, she has a shot. Interesting...of course, your reasoning is that there is rampant delusionism in the country and a majority of people who just have no idea what they are doing. In other words, they do not have either your vision or wisdom. Interesting that you use the Hitler analogy, since that is exactly how Obama got elected....a fellow with a smooth line of gab, tapping into the hysteria and bad sentiment against Bush, with a wealth of promises that he could restore the country to it's former greatness. No one stopped to think how a former corporal and house painter could do this for Germany, any more than they thought how a former community organizer and one term congressman with no business, foreign or military experience could do that for America. They just elected him because he wasn't Bush, or the party of Bush, and besides Oprah liked him. They became mesmerized by his chant of YES, WE CAN in the same way mind control freaks (how about a little kool-aid, my friend?) of the 60's used the same tactic. We are now paying for it, just like Germany paid for putting their house painter with the golden gift of gab in charge. You speak of there being a chance that there are so many Americans dissatisfied with the direction of the country but you give no credence or thought that could possibly indicate that they have reasons to feel that way. You prefer to write it off as hypnotism or mass hysteria. I find that a litttle hysterical. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "American culture mistakenly prizes bravado and arrogance as sure signs of leadership." Gee, who comes to mind . . . . |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
