OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?
Do you think Obama is the weakest president ever?
The article below makes some pretty strong arguments:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/235196/Barack-Obama-The-Weakest-President-in-history-
The article below makes some pretty strong arguments:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/235196/Barack-Obama-The-Weakest-President-in-history-
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
<sidebar>
BigRat - For the record, I never said to you "You don't understand simple economics", if you re-read that thread I said something like "you have a good handle on these principles", yet you proposed an idea that IMO would not be good for the economy "at this time" (key phrase), and therefore would actually be counterproductive to the goal of making the debt manageable. I don't want to re-hash the argument, just to clarify that I did give you a fair hearing and due credit, as you did me.
</sidebar>
BigRat - For the record, I never said to you "You don't understand simple economics", if you re-read that thread I said something like "you have a good handle on these principles", yet you proposed an idea that IMO would not be good for the economy "at this time" (key phrase), and therefore would actually be counterproductive to the goal of making the debt manageable. I don't want to re-hash the argument, just to clarify that I did give you a fair hearing and due credit, as you did me.
</sidebar>
ASKER
>>but the worst president he is not yet
Do you have a weaker president to name?
Do you have a weaker president to name?
ASKER
>>worst president he is not yet
Question focused on "weak" not worst. They could go hand in hand, but that's not the focus of the question.
Question focused on "weak" not worst. They could go hand in hand, but that's not the focus of the question.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
He might be the weakest, depending on how you define "weak".
Some possible criteria for weakness might be
Being forced to resign.
Being impeached.
Having the most vetoes overridden.
Having the most nominations denied in the Senate.
Having no standing army to command.
(by that last criterion, Obama might seem the strongest president ever for commanding
a military with the largest budget ever - although with inflation adjustment, FDR would have been stonger
in that sense)
Being least popular.
(that one may be hard to assess objectively as opinion polling methods in the 19th century may not be comparable to opinion polling methods in the 21th century)
Another debate might be how strong a president ought to be.
And what is the appropriate balance of power between the various branches of government.
Some possible criteria for weakness might be
Being forced to resign.
Being impeached.
Having the most vetoes overridden.
Having the most nominations denied in the Senate.
Having no standing army to command.
(by that last criterion, Obama might seem the strongest president ever for commanding
a military with the largest budget ever - although with inflation adjustment, FDR would have been stonger
in that sense)
Being least popular.
(that one may be hard to assess objectively as opinion polling methods in the 19th century may not be comparable to opinion polling methods in the 21th century)
Another debate might be how strong a president ought to be.
And what is the appropriate balance of power between the various branches of government.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Also...
A desire for peace through diplomacy should not be misconstrued as an unwillingness to engage an enemy.
A desire for peace through diplomacy should not be misconstrued as an unwillingness to engage an enemy.
I see a lot of second guessing and criticism of the president, but nobody seems to be willing to lay their own cards on the table and state what they would *specifically* do differently.
I see lots of people stating *specifically* as to what they would do differently from the Tea Party's to the ACLU. To say otherwise is just not true.
I see lots of people stating *specifically* as to what they would do differently from the Tea Party's to the ACLU. To say otherwise is just not true.
Iran. The Green Movement call for democracy, Obama stands aloof. Iran plan to execute opposition leaders.
Egypt. Hosni Mubarak, long standing ally of the US, faces demonstrations, Obama quickly calls for him to resign.
Ass-licking enemies and abandonment of friends seems to be the watchword for Obama, except of course with that old friend Saudi Arabia, whose invasion of Bahrain evoked no protests.
Egypt. Hosni Mubarak, long standing ally of the US, faces demonstrations, Obama quickly calls for him to resign.
Ass-licking enemies and abandonment of friends seems to be the watchword for Obama, except of course with that old friend Saudi Arabia, whose invasion of Bahrain evoked no protests.
Greece was an ally too when they had an unpopular brutal government. The United States chose to back Papadopoulos because he was a staunch ally. He was a staunch ally, and also a brutal repressive power hungry dictator. Greeks still distrust and dislike America, backing Papadopoulos was a short term positive and a long term mistake. Unpopular dictatorships are untenable and will at some point crumble.
Mubarak was a disliked leader with very little long term support. His friendship towards the United States was not accompanied by any internal support for a government that matched the ideals or principals held dear within the United States. He acted as an ally, but he is disliked, has little support left, does not support our ideals and has a horrible long term prognosis for staying in power. Supporting Mubarka would result in 3 to 5 years of close cooperation followed by decades of hatred distrust and antipathy when his inevitable fall from power occurred.
Iran is the country most likely to fall apart on it's own if we just stay away and let it. Sending in US troops to Iran would create a groundswell of support for clerics who, left to their own devices will be out of power within a decade.
From a long term standpoint Obama made the correct call in both those conflicts.
You can give all the reasons you like for not supporting Mubarak. I even agree with you. But the point is, Mubarak was an ally of the US until there was a rebellion, then Obama turned against him.
Yes, Obama fears Islam. Perhaps that's why he goes for the weak targets, like Gadaffi, who have no allies and whose regime is not supported by muslims.
Here is Obama meeting Gadaffi at the G8 in 2009. Just read some of the positive comments about this.
http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=3357
Iran is the country most likely to fall apart on it's own if we just stay away and let it. Sending in US troops to Iran would create a groundswell of support for clerics who, left to their own devices will be out of power within a decade
.Yes, Obama fears Islam. Perhaps that's why he goes for the weak targets, like Gadaffi, who have no allies and whose regime is not supported by muslims.
Here is Obama meeting Gadaffi at the G8 in 2009. Just read some of the positive comments about this.
http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=3357
It looks like Gaddafi's newspaper likes Gaddafi.
Indeed it does. And so do many of Gadaffi's people.
In Iran the protests did not have universal broad based support, and there was not a widespread military uprising to be supported. In Libya the protests are broad based and there is a military uprising. Anyone in the United States who thinks that we should not support Libya, but should have invaded Iran is not in possession of a keen military mind.
I can certainly understand the position that we should not do anything with Iran because we are currently fighting in 2 different countries. Heck, I thought Iraq was a horrible idea because we already had a huge commitment in Afghanistan and needed to complete our mission there first. So I am certainly not always in favor of military action.
But anyone who thought that Iraq was a great Idea and that invading Iran would have been absolutely terrific, but that being involved with the conflict in Libya is a horrible idea. That person has scrambled brains. The incredible inconsistency of positions there is just too much to take.
Anyone who did not think we should have invaded Iraq and who did not want us to invade Iran, and who does not now think that we should be assisting the rebels in Libya. That I can understand.
I can certainly understand the position that we should not do anything with Iran because we are currently fighting in 2 different countries. Heck, I thought Iraq was a horrible idea because we already had a huge commitment in Afghanistan and needed to complete our mission there first. So I am certainly not always in favor of military action.
But anyone who thought that Iraq was a great Idea and that invading Iran would have been absolutely terrific, but that being involved with the conflict in Libya is a horrible idea. That person has scrambled brains. The incredible inconsistency of positions there is just too much to take.
Anyone who did not think we should have invaded Iraq and who did not want us to invade Iran, and who does not now think that we should be assisting the rebels in Libya. That I can understand.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
""The use of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 is invalid."""
...dictatorship is invalid to begin with.
A dictator has earned no right to sovereignty, especially when they are no longer valid in the eyes of their own people.
Forgive me if I don't shed a tear when Gadhafi is killed by a NATO missile.
""Obama should have done one of two things. (1) Stay out and advise other countries to do so. I doubt wheher any action would have been taken without US, Germany, Russia and China on board. (2) Total committment from the beginning, including the sending in of troops to secure rebel captured towns.
""""
That's about as contradictory of a position as one could take. It allows you to argue against any action that isn't either.... 1) complete isolationist 2) unilateral ground war. ..Neither of which are workable policies in the current geopolitical climate.
...dictatorship is invalid to begin with.
A dictator has earned no right to sovereignty, especially when they are no longer valid in the eyes of their own people.
Forgive me if I don't shed a tear when Gadhafi is killed by a NATO missile.
""Obama should have done one of two things. (1) Stay out and advise other countries to do so. I doubt wheher any action would have been taken without US, Germany, Russia and China on board. (2) Total committment from the beginning, including the sending in of troops to secure rebel captured towns.
""""
That's about as contradictory of a position as one could take. It allows you to argue against any action that isn't either.... 1) complete isolationist 2) unilateral ground war. ..Neither of which are workable policies in the current geopolitical climate.
""'I don't know if Obama is the weakest president in history, but he is certainly an indecisive one.""""
I find the right wing arguments to be duplicitous and convenient...
If he acted more "decisively", meaning more quickly..., conservatives would say he should have waited for allies to join the effort, or that he "bypassed congress"....or it was a "kneejerk" decision that he didn't think through.
What you call indecisive or "dithering"... (a "buzz word" that's been passed around the right wing parrot machine for several weeks).... I call measured and calculated.
I find the right wing arguments to be duplicitous and convenient...
If he acted more "decisively", meaning more quickly..., conservatives would say he should have waited for allies to join the effort, or that he "bypassed congress"....or it was a "kneejerk" decision that he didn't think through.
What you call indecisive or "dithering"... (a "buzz word" that's been passed around the right wing parrot machine for several weeks).... I call measured and calculated.
That's about as contradictory of a position as one could take. It allows you to argue against any action that isn't either.... 1) complete isolationist 2) unilateral ground war. ..Neither of which are workable policies in the current geopolitical climate.
It means you either go in and do the job properly, or keep out. And he could have kept out. This was a rebellion - an internal matter in Libya that Gadaffi would have put down, with much less loss of life and suffering than we're seeing now. The civilian population is suffering now in a way that would never have happened if NATO wasn't bombing Libya. France and Britain pushed for intervention for their own reasons. US doesn't care much about Gadaffi. The US defence secretary advised Obama not do it. He could, and should have said no. That's being decisive. That's taking a stance.
The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 calls for an end to violence and all attacks against civilians. Yet the rebels are recognised by the west as a legitimate opposition. So they are not civilians, and their aggression towards Gadaffi troops is equally likely to cause harm to civilans. What we are seeing here is the UN being used as a machine for political force, rather than to promote peace. But, the resolution also states that
...dictatorship is invalid to begin with.
All of the Arab world is ruled by autocracies. Do they have the right? We see rebelions there too, that are put down immediately. The west don't intervene.
Good thing too. Because where the west does intervene, there's a bloody mess. Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam etc. Did those countries invite Americans to come and kill their people and impose their own idea of what form of government their country should have? Or did the Americans just decide to do it? What right does the US have to impose it's ideas of right and wrong on the world? In that sense America is the dictator of the world. I thought Obama might have changed that, or at least tried too.
It means you either go in and do the job properly, or keep out. And he could have kept out. This was a rebellion - an internal matter in Libya that Gadaffi would have put down, with much less loss of life and suffering than we're seeing now. The civilian population is suffering now in a way that would never have happened if NATO wasn't bombing Libya. France and Britain pushed for intervention for their own reasons. US doesn't care much about Gadaffi. The US defence secretary advised Obama not do it. He could, and should have said no. That's being decisive. That's taking a stance.
The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 calls for an end to violence and all attacks against civilians. Yet the rebels are recognised by the west as a legitimate opposition. So they are not civilians, and their aggression towards Gadaffi troops is equally likely to cause harm to civilans. What we are seeing here is the UN being used as a machine for political force, rather than to promote peace. But, the resolution also states that
...dictatorship is invalid to begin with.
A dictator has earned no right to sovereignty, especially when they are no longer valid in the eyes of their own people.
All of the Arab world is ruled by autocracies. Do they have the right? We see rebelions there too, that are put down immediately. The west don't intervene.
Good thing too. Because where the west does intervene, there's a bloody mess. Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam etc. Did those countries invite Americans to come and kill their people and impose their own idea of what form of government their country should have? Or did the Americans just decide to do it? What right does the US have to impose it's ideas of right and wrong on the world? In that sense America is the dictator of the world. I thought Obama might have changed that, or at least tried too.
"""All of the Arab world is ruled by autocracies. """"
Watch closely......I think you are witnessing an end to that period in human history.
Nobody believes it's not going to be messy or long...but... so what ?
Freedom is a human right. - non-negotiable....and just because we can't intervene everywhere doesn't mean we shouldn't intervene anywhere.
If you defend a dictatorship, you have less right to your own freedom...and until the day comes you decide to volunteer to go live under a dictatorship...you have no right to criticize others who refuse to live under dictatorship.
Let me say it again...
Dictatorship = INVALID
This is a fact, and if you want proof I can provide it quite easily....
Watch closely......I think you are witnessing an end to that period in human history.
Nobody believes it's not going to be messy or long...but... so what ?
Freedom is a human right. - non-negotiable....and just because we can't intervene everywhere doesn't mean we shouldn't intervene anywhere.
If you defend a dictatorship, you have less right to your own freedom...and until the day comes you decide to volunteer to go live under a dictatorship...you have no right to criticize others who refuse to live under dictatorship.
Let me say it again...
Dictatorship = INVALID
This is a fact, and if you want proof I can provide it quite easily....
'""do the job properly""" - Disclaimer: SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION
If you defend a dictatorship, you have less right to your own freedom...and until the day comes you decide to volunteer to go live under a dictatorship...you have no right to criticize others who refuse to live under dictatorship.
Don't recall criticising the rebels. I'm criticing the US and the UN and the western coalition.I think we should keep out of other countries' business and use the UN for what it was originally intend for - maintaining peace and humanitarian aid, and not as an agent of western political force. And not as a prolonger of war!
And as for telling me what I can and can't criticise, I have only this to say. If you believe that the US should go around putting the world to right wherever it can, imposing its noble democratic values (as well as political and economic self-interests) on other countries, then may be you're the one who should live by that. Why don't you go and live in Iraq or Afghanistan where those INVALID regimes have been replaced with the valid American ones, and help your fellow Americans stand up for what is right?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
""""So they are not civilians, and their aggression towards Gadaffi troops is equally likely to cause harm to civilans."""" = criticism.
"""Why don't you go and live in"""
... I don't have to, nor would I want to live in a non-democratic country, ..and i'm an American not an Iraqi. Also, I don't have to join the military to have an opinion on proper use of the military either.
I think the US and every other democratic country on earth should exploit the opportunity to spread democracy whenever possible. Gadhafi provided the US and our allies with plenty of jusitification. So it's game over for him.
""" use the UN for what it was originally intend for"""
This is what it's for....especially the Security Council.
"""Why don't you go and live in"""
... I don't have to, nor would I want to live in a non-democratic country, ..and i'm an American not an Iraqi. Also, I don't have to join the military to have an opinion on proper use of the military either.
I think the US and every other democratic country on earth should exploit the opportunity to spread democracy whenever possible. Gadhafi provided the US and our allies with plenty of jusitification. So it's game over for him.
""" use the UN for what it was originally intend for"""
This is what it's for....especially the Security Council.
""So what is that my gas costs $3.75 a gallon today """ - ... exactly ... SO WHAT..
Believe it or not the cost of gasoline is not the most important thing. Certainly not if we're debating the MORAL aspects of this situation.
""So what is that we are spending millions of dollars """... again... SO WHAT...
We've spent millions of dollars on far less important things in my opinion. That plastic argument can be applied to ANYTHING the government does.
"""As far as I am concerned, the Libyans allowed Gaddafi to rule all these years. Let them throw him out if they no longer want him. """
...That's the thing about dictatorships.... nobody "allows" them to rule...they just do.
Believe it or not the cost of gasoline is not the most important thing. Certainly not if we're debating the MORAL aspects of this situation.
""So what is that we are spending millions of dollars """... again... SO WHAT...
We've spent millions of dollars on far less important things in my opinion. That plastic argument can be applied to ANYTHING the government does.
"""As far as I am concerned, the Libyans allowed Gaddafi to rule all these years. Let them throw him out if they no longer want him. """
...That's the thing about dictatorships.... nobody "allows" them to rule...they just do.
Strike last post... different thread.
>>Strike last post... different thread.
You have the right thread. Just call me selfish, but morally I am more worried about our contry than I am about another. The last time energy prices spiked the way they are right now was in 2008 and it culminated in the housing bubble bursting and financial disaster. Higher energy prices are an extreme drag on an economy that cannot afford an extreme drag. Jason210 is right. We should have let Gaddafi end the whole thing quickly instead of helping to drag it on. It is an internal Libyan matter that should be left to them.
You have the right thread. Just call me selfish, but morally I am more worried about our contry than I am about another. The last time energy prices spiked the way they are right now was in 2008 and it culminated in the housing bubble bursting and financial disaster. Higher energy prices are an extreme drag on an economy that cannot afford an extreme drag. Jason210 is right. We should have let Gaddafi end the whole thing quickly instead of helping to drag it on. It is an internal Libyan matter that should be left to them.
""let Gaddafi end the whole thing quickly"""
...Say what you really mean.
When you say "end", I think you mean kill. When you say "the whole thing", you mean the mass movement of people who initially demonstrated peacefully for freedom and were met with violence.
I have a moral dillema with that, and yes I believe it is selfish, but moresoe shortsighted. It's exactly that mindset that allows the worst atrocities to go unpunished. Even worse, it empowers those autocratic individuals who are diametrically opposed to ideas like ...freedom and human rights.
It sends a message that ..no matter how horrible the crime... dictators won't be punished so long as they apply crushing force to a civilian population and any opposition. That's the same philosophy that allowed Hitler to get as far as he did.
...Say what you really mean.
When you say "end", I think you mean kill. When you say "the whole thing", you mean the mass movement of people who initially demonstrated peacefully for freedom and were met with violence.
I have a moral dillema with that, and yes I believe it is selfish, but moresoe shortsighted. It's exactly that mindset that allows the worst atrocities to go unpunished. Even worse, it empowers those autocratic individuals who are diametrically opposed to ideas like ...freedom and human rights.
It sends a message that ..no matter how horrible the crime... dictators won't be punished so long as they apply crushing force to a civilian population and any opposition. That's the same philosophy that allowed Hitler to get as far as he did.
sbt88631
Since this post was about Obama, I have responded to your Gadaffi post in concurrent thread.
Since this post was about Obama, I have responded to your Gadaffi post in concurrent thread.
>>When you say "end", I think you mean kill. When you say "the whole thing", you mean the mass movement of people who initially demonstrated peacefully for freedom and were met with violence.
Yup. They were satisfied to have him as their leader for over forty years without doing anything about it. He is their problem, not ours.
Yup. They were satisfied to have him as their leader for over forty years without doing anything about it. He is their problem, not ours.
""" They were satisfied to have him as their leader for over forty years """"
...I think you are confusing being satisfied, with being scared to death.
Realize that the freedom you and I enjoy ...right at this moment,.. could mean an execution or life in prison in other places of the world.
""He is their problem, not ours""
... was it only their problem when he killed Americans in a terrorist attack ?
...I think you are confusing being satisfied, with being scared to death.
Realize that the freedom you and I enjoy ...right at this moment,.. could mean an execution or life in prison in other places of the world.
""He is their problem, not ours""
... was it only their problem when he killed Americans in a terrorist attack ?
+1 point to Obama, for having the balls to order the raid on the Bin Laden's compound instead of hitting it with missles.
+1 point to Obama, for dumping the body in the sea.
+1 point to Obama, for dumping the body in the sea.
hah.. True.
+1 point to Obama, for not releasing photo of body of OBL
+1 point to Obama, for not releasing photo of body of OBL
That is -1 in my book. Besides, I think the press will force him to do it anyway.
That is -1 in my book. Besides, I think the press will force him to do it anyway.
The press can't force him to do it.
We've already seen many rejoice in his death and the vulgar celebrations that entailed. Should Obama now also indulge those people by satisfying their morbid curiosity? Or did you feel that OBL sympathizrs and supporters ought to see the body of OBL with a chunk of his head missing to scare them -- kind of like when they used to hang bodies of criminals outside towns in the medieval times?
If Obama released the photo, it would be circulating social media sites in no time, and be used by militant agitators to inflame less militant muslims. That's why he's not releasing it.
We've already seen many rejoice in his death and the vulgar celebrations that entailed. Should Obama now also indulge those people by satisfying their morbid curiosity? Or did you feel that OBL sympathizrs and supporters ought to see the body of OBL with a chunk of his head missing to scare them -- kind of like when they used to hang bodies of criminals outside towns in the medieval times?
If Obama released the photo, it would be circulating social media sites in no time, and be used by militant agitators to inflame less militant muslims. That's why he's not releasing it.
I agree. What will be done with those photos by those who have no internal control mechanism would be unnecisarily damaging to the image of the United States abroad.
People in the United States have every reason to feel triumphant, they have every reason to despise Bin Laden and it is understandable that many may wish to deface his dead photo in disgusting ways. But the job of a leader is to understand what the impact those actions will have on your long term goals as a country.
Ultimately it depends upon whether or not he intends to stay in the region for a prolonged period of time. If not release the photo and who cares what everyone else thinks, but if he intends to maintain a US presence for any extended period of time then hearts and minds are important. If he intends on maintaining a presence then I think releasing the photos would show a weakness of character on Obamas part and would be popular in the short term but problematic in the long term.
People in the United States have every reason to feel triumphant, they have every reason to despise Bin Laden and it is understandable that many may wish to deface his dead photo in disgusting ways. But the job of a leader is to understand what the impact those actions will have on your long term goals as a country.
Ultimately it depends upon whether or not he intends to stay in the region for a prolonged period of time. If not release the photo and who cares what everyone else thinks, but if he intends to maintain a US presence for any extended period of time then hearts and minds are important. If he intends on maintaining a presence then I think releasing the photos would show a weakness of character on Obamas part and would be popular in the short term but problematic in the long term.
Don't you think that releasing the photo is like exhibiting a trophy? Kind of like when a game animal has been shot, the head gets stuffed and put up on wall? I think Obama is keen to steer people away from this mentality also.
The press can't force him to do it.
Freedom of Information Act. Its just a matter of time, but those photo's are comming out, and yes some fool will put it on a T-shirt.
Freedom of Information Act. Its just a matter of time, but those photo's are comming out, and yes some fool will put it on a T-shirt.
There are several exemptions to that act and one of them is national defence, which is what Obama will be using. yes they might come out eventually, but that might in like in 30 years time.
Has anybody though of Wikileaks?
It would be probably be better to destroy the photos in that case.
It would be probably be better to destroy the photos in that case.
I am willing to bet that those photos will be out in less than a year, or at least before the next election.
-1 for everyone who don't seem to care about the Constitution.
Regardless of what can be said about OBL, there is no doubt that violating another country's boundary's and assassinating someone is a pretty big breach of treaties.
What if the Seals had dropped in to London and assassinated OBL there? Do you think England would have gone along with a decision like that??
Regardless of what can be said about OBL, there is no doubt that violating another country's boundary's and assassinating someone is a pretty big breach of treaties.
What if the Seals had dropped in to London and assassinated OBL there? Do you think England would have gone along with a decision like that??
Do you think England would have gone along with a decision like that??
Yes, I think they would have gone along, but the points is there would not have been a need to do it, since we trust the British to not harbor such a man.
Yes, I think they would have gone along, but the points is there would not have been a need to do it, since we trust the British to not harbor such a man.
That wasn't the question. The question is can the United States just send military troops in to any country without their knowledge or consent?
It seems pretty obvious that Obama violated international treaties about the sovereignty of other nations. Or now does the United States pick and choose which nations 'matter' and which ones don't?
It seems pretty obvious that Obama violated international treaties about the sovereignty of other nations. Or now does the United States pick and choose which nations 'matter' and which ones don't?
Or now does the United States pick and choose which nations 'matter' and which ones don't?
Yeap, that is why Libya is being bombed by NATO, Syria is only facing possible sanctions.
Yeap, that is why Libya is being bombed by NATO, Syria is only facing possible sanctions.
The USA has now set a precedent in it's foreign policy. It's sent a message to the world that it can take out anybody it likes regardless of what country they are in. There are already discussions between middle-east analysts that such an approach might be taken with leaders of oppressive regimes, like Gadaffi.
In addition to breaching the sovereignty of another country, the killing of OBL was an extra-judicial killing which was also wrong. So the USA has set a precedent there too. It can justify extra-judicial killings "in some cases".
These precedents show that not only is their a mechanism in place to carry out these operations, but that the USA can get away with it too.
In addition to breaching the sovereignty of another country, the killing of OBL was an extra-judicial killing which was also wrong. So the USA has set a precedent there too. It can justify extra-judicial killings "in some cases".
These precedents show that not only is their a mechanism in place to carry out these operations, but that the USA can get away with it too.
>>So the USA has set a precedent there too. It can justify extra-judicial killings "in some cases".
This sort of thing has been going on for centuaries, only the USA has to make a lot of noise* about it. The major thing which I object to is Americans going on about doing it in the name of "justice and freedom", ie: doing ME a favour!
* When I was in England a women of some literary repute asked me what I was studying and I said American History. She said why would one want to study the history of such a *brash* nation as that. The word *brash* I thought at the time was very odd, but over the years it seems more and more to fit.
This sort of thing has been going on for centuaries, only the USA has to make a lot of noise* about it. The major thing which I object to is Americans going on about doing it in the name of "justice and freedom", ie: doing ME a favour!
* When I was in England a women of some literary repute asked me what I was studying and I said American History. She said why would one want to study the history of such a *brash* nation as that. The word *brash* I thought at the time was very odd, but over the years it seems more and more to fit.
ASKER
>>She said why would one want to study the history of such a *brash* nation as that
Like to see her description were the US to stop offering aid and relief missions around the globe. The US is by far the most generous country on the face of the planet, and there's not another country that even comes close.
You should have told her to keep quiet about things she knows nothing about.
Like to see her description were the US to stop offering aid and relief missions around the globe. The US is by far the most generous country on the face of the planet, and there's not another country that even comes close.
You should have told her to keep quiet about things she knows nothing about.
>>The US is by far the most generous country on the face of the planet, and there's not another country that even comes close.
Oh yet another myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_development_assistance#Distribution
Now let us compare the US with 310 million inhabitants with the the EEC, some 500 million inhabitants. The US gives around 28 billion, the EEC around 56 (by adding up the contributions of the members). Add Norway and Switzerland - so we are talking about Europe - it's well over sixty.
Compare by percentage of GDP then my country Luxembourg comes third, the US as nineteenth next to Greece and Portugal.
One can only hope that carsRST is not a typical American.
Oh yet another myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_development_assistance#Distribution
Now let us compare the US with 310 million inhabitants with the the EEC, some 500 million inhabitants. The US gives around 28 billion, the EEC around 56 (by adding up the contributions of the members). Add Norway and Switzerland - so we are talking about Europe - it's well over sixty.
Compare by percentage of GDP then my country Luxembourg comes third, the US as nineteenth next to Greece and Portugal.
One can only hope that carsRST is not a typical American.
ASKER
>>Now let us compare the US with 310 million inhabitants with the the EEC
For one, that list (taken with a grain of salt) does not include private donations (again, not another country that comes close). Two, you have to add in how many countries? Three - where was Luxembourg with Haiti, tsunami in 2004, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan...who led all those relief efforts?
Nice try though.
For one, that list (taken with a grain of salt) does not include private donations (again, not another country that comes close). Two, you have to add in how many countries? Three - where was Luxembourg with Haiti, tsunami in 2004, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan...who led all those relief efforts?
Nice try though.
>>The US is by far the most generous country on the face of the planet, and there's not another country that even comes close.
What an odd statement. The chat was about President Obama breaking international law by sending the military into another country.
By your statement, does a rich guy like the IMF Chief get a free pass for raping a maid, simply because he's rich?
What an odd statement. The chat was about President Obama breaking international law by sending the military into another country.
By your statement, does a rich guy like the IMF Chief get a free pass for raping a maid, simply because he's rich?
ASKER
>>By your statement, does a rich guy like the IMF Chief get a free pass for raping a maid, simply because he's rich?
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying (eyes rolling)
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying (eyes rolling)
Sticking to the point, the OBL assassination is a precedent in the sense that it was openly admitted to by the USA and was mostly approved by western governments and the western media. It's seems to be politically correct to condone the killing, which is disturbing I think.
>>again, not another country that comes close
Reference? Proof.
>>What an odd statement
I agree, but he continually makes unsubstianted statements.
>>Sticking to the point...
I'm not quite sure that one might find an example from the previous centuary, or the one before, although perhaps internatiional law did not prevail. On the other hand my point is that everybody does it, it is only the Americans who are brash enough to admit it.
>> (eyes rolling)
I'd see a doctor about that, if I were you.
Reference? Proof.
>>What an odd statement
I agree, but he continually makes unsubstianted statements.
>>Sticking to the point...
I'm not quite sure that one might find an example from the previous centuary, or the one before, although perhaps internatiional law did not prevail. On the other hand my point is that everybody does it, it is only the Americans who are brash enough to admit it.
>> (eyes rolling)
I'd see a doctor about that, if I were you.
Was our soveriengty not violated by the hijackers on 9/11 ???
How dare anyone criticize the US for exacting JUSTICE on this scumbag...because there is not a singel country on earth that wouldn't do the same exact thing in that situation.
Pakistan's "feelings hurt" are the least of my concern.
Justice is more important than "feelings" or precedents.
How dare anyone criticize the US for exacting JUSTICE on this scumbag...because there is not a singel country on earth that wouldn't do the same exact thing in that situation.
Pakistan's "feelings hurt" are the least of my concern.
Justice is more important than "feelings" or precedents.
Watch the president speaking LIVE right now...and tell me that what he is saying..right now...is in any way weak.
...I think his testicles might be visible from the international space station right now.
...I think his testicles might be visible from the international space station right now.
>>Was our soveriengty not violated by the hijackers on 9/11 ???
Strickly speaking not. You actually let all of the hijackers into your country on valid passports. I believe that the nationality of them were Saudis and if you weren't on good terms with that dictatorship and human rights violators you'd probably not have let them into the country.
Strickly speaking not. You actually let all of the hijackers into your country on valid passports. I believe that the nationality of them were Saudis and if you weren't on good terms with that dictatorship and human rights violators you'd probably not have let them into the country.
""Strickly speaking not. You actually let all of the hijackers into your country on valid passports. I believe that the nationality of them were Saudis and if you weren't on good terms with that dictatorship and human rights violators you'd probably not have let them into the country. """
...touche~..good point....lol...but it was an attack anyway and it was avenged without hostility toward Pakistan itself.
I think the Saudi Regime is going to get what is coming to them sooner or later by their own people.... our "good terms" with them are not as good as some believe. They are our "frenemies".
...touche~..good point....lol...but it was an attack anyway and it was avenged without hostility toward Pakistan itself.
I think the Saudi Regime is going to get what is coming to them sooner or later by their own people.... our "good terms" with them are not as good as some believe. They are our "frenemies".
"How dare anyone criticize the US for exacting JUSTICE on this scumbag...because there is not a singel country on earth that wouldn't do the same exact thing in that situation."
OMG! What an unbelievable statement. This is exactly the kind of "Justice" that exists in the Middle East, which is exactly why the Middle East is such a f--ing mess. One tribe member gets killed by another, so the other tribe shoots another tribe member. Just exactly the opposite of what our country stands for. Justice by gun or car bomb. Sounds like Bonanza or Gunsmoke 'justice'.
How dare I criticize the US? I will if I want. That's called free speech dude. I guess you're against that too. Unreal.
The whole notion of Justice lies in our Justice and Court system, not by assassination. Let's face it. OBL was murdered. Whether it was a 'justified' murder can be debated. But it wasn't 'Justice'. Justice and murder don't go together. It's an entirely unAmerican concept.
OMG! What an unbelievable statement. This is exactly the kind of "Justice" that exists in the Middle East, which is exactly why the Middle East is such a f--ing mess. One tribe member gets killed by another, so the other tribe shoots another tribe member. Just exactly the opposite of what our country stands for. Justice by gun or car bomb. Sounds like Bonanza or Gunsmoke 'justice'.
How dare I criticize the US? I will if I want. That's called free speech dude. I guess you're against that too. Unreal.
The whole notion of Justice lies in our Justice and Court system, not by assassination. Let's face it. OBL was murdered. Whether it was a 'justified' murder can be debated. But it wasn't 'Justice'. Justice and murder don't go together. It's an entirely unAmerican concept.
ASKER
>>Let's face it. OBL was murdered.
Yeah, it would have been better to capture him, give him an ACLU attorney, a platform from which to speak his evil, and a lengthy trial that would have cost US tax payers millions.
Or...
use a cheap bullet
I'll go the bullet route.
Yeah, it would have been better to capture him, give him an ACLU attorney, a platform from which to speak his evil, and a lengthy trial that would have cost US tax payers millions.
Or...
use a cheap bullet
I'll go the bullet route.
Ha, how totally expected. ACLU bashing. How childlike.
I wonder if the tables were turned and Pakistan sent a secret military force in to murder the Seals who were part of the OBL hit squad if you'd have a different reaction. After all, like it says in the bible, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
I wonder if the tables were turned and Pakistan sent a secret military force in to murder the Seals who were part of the OBL hit squad if you'd have a different reaction. After all, like it says in the bible, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
>>...that would have cost US tax payers millions.
I did suggest the International Court in the Hague. That would have cost the US taxpayer nothing and given us the problem of security and possible terrorist blackmail. But you're so dead against co-operating with others, so dead for doing everything yourself.
I did suggest the International Court in the Hague. That would have cost the US taxpayer nothing and given us the problem of security and possible terrorist blackmail. But you're so dead against co-operating with others, so dead for doing everything yourself.
ASKER
>>I did suggest the International Court in the Hague.
Bullet much better and cheaper and is the only thing these animals understand
>>I wonder if the tables were turned and Pakistan sent a secret military force
They're too busy protecting terrorists.
Bullet much better and cheaper and is the only thing these animals understand
>>I wonder if the tables were turned and Pakistan sent a secret military force
They're too busy protecting terrorists.
Pakistan is barely a government. The military and armed religious nuts are forces that could topple the government. They don't have alot of control over the country so you're comment is pretty uninformed once again.
"That's called free speech dude"
...WHERE do you think that right comes from...DUDE ?
...those rights don't exist in those "tribal" areas btw..
""Pakistan is barely a government."""
Ahh...seee ....now you're getting it....
Pakistan only has a government because of US support.
Without our support the extremists would have confiscated by force...their whole country by now.
So while some would like to believe that a policy of isolationism would lead to US prosperity and peace......they would be dead wrong, and eventually just dead.
Forgive me if I dont' shed a tear for OBL.... or that i'm not sympathetic to the "sovereignty" of Pakistan's fledgling government.
...WHERE do you think that right comes from...DUDE ?
...those rights don't exist in those "tribal" areas btw..
""Pakistan is barely a government."""
Ahh...seee ....now you're getting it....
Pakistan only has a government because of US support.
Without our support the extremists would have confiscated by force...their whole country by now.
So while some would like to believe that a policy of isolationism would lead to US prosperity and peace......they would be dead wrong, and eventually just dead.
Forgive me if I dont' shed a tear for OBL.... or that i'm not sympathetic to the "sovereignty" of Pakistan's fledgling government.
OBL declared open war on the US...
In war...when the enemy is killed...nobody calls is "murder" ....dude..
In war...when the enemy is killed...nobody calls is "murder" ....dude..
"""you're so dead against co-operating with others"""
The US and Pakistan cooperate constantly....behind the scenes.
But with the location of OBL being right next to a Paki army base... the risk of COOPERATING is that OBL get's tipped off and escapes, and is able to carry out more attacks against the US and Europe.
I don't think Obama...Bush..or any president or leader in the world would take that chance.
The US and Pakistan cooperate constantly....behind the scenes.
But with the location of OBL being right next to a Paki army base... the risk of COOPERATING is that OBL get's tipped off and escapes, and is able to carry out more attacks against the US and Europe.
I don't think Obama...Bush..or any president or leader in the world would take that chance.
For anyone who believes a bunch of raghead Muslims living in caves overpowered pilots in 4 airliners and flew right into the Pentagon, what are you smoking? You think the Muslims are all James Bond and our military is a bunch of incompetent boobs?
ASKER
Datarich-
You're off your rocker, man.
You're off your rocker, man.
Datarich...
That was assinine... and over the top.
...the "raghead" comment was unnecessary.
They weren't up against our military, they were up against a plane full of terrified civilian passengers and 1 inch thick cockpit door...
They didn't have to be James Bond. They just got lucky and we were unprepared.
That was assinine... and over the top.
...the "raghead" comment was unnecessary.
They weren't up against our military, they were up against a plane full of terrified civilian passengers and 1 inch thick cockpit door...
They didn't have to be James Bond. They just got lucky and we were unprepared.
Hardly. I refuse to believe our entire army, navy and air force were SO incompetent that they watched for 30 minutes as a jet flew from Ohio to the Pentagon. It's simply not possible. There are thousands of architects, engineers, pilots and firefighters who think the same way.
http://ae911truth.org/
http://ae911truth.org/
ah... a 911 truther....
That explains it...
Nevermind.
That explains it...
Nevermind.
ASKER
>>Hardly. I refuse to believe our entire army, navy and air force were SO incompetent that they watched
I heard they were out chasing bigfoot.
patterson-bigfoot-lg.jpg
I heard they were out chasing bigfoot.
patterson-bigfoot-lg.jpg
Ha, ha. You're so predictable. You haven't made one rational comment yet, RST.
Not true Cars...
Bigfoot works for the CIA...they supply him with food and weapons so he can terrorize people in our national parks. It's a huge conspiracy, ...they know right where he is.
Bigfoot works for the CIA...they supply him with food and weapons so he can terrorize people in our national parks. It's a huge conspiracy, ...they know right where he is.
DataRich...
Realize you are basing your arguments on a crazy conspiracy theory.
...most people, are going to find humor in that.
Realize you are basing your arguments on a crazy conspiracy theory.
...most people, are going to find humor in that.
I find our entire political and media system pretty humorous. The fact is most crimes are conspiracies.
And any lawyer who wants to win a case had better come up with a good conspiracy theory.
People are just parrots and they repeat 'conspiracy theory' because the heard it on TV without having a clue what it means.
The other fact is that the pilots were military pilots, not scared civilians. Nearly all pilots are ex-military. It's sad you call them scared civilians, xuserx.
And any lawyer who wants to win a case had better come up with a good conspiracy theory.
People are just parrots and they repeat 'conspiracy theory' because the heard it on TV without having a clue what it means.
The other fact is that the pilots were military pilots, not scared civilians. Nearly all pilots are ex-military. It's sad you call them scared civilians, xuserx.
Datarich,
Maybe you want to hold a candlelight vigil for Osama at ground zero ??
...Then when people outraged and gunning for you, you can simply explain that it was all a big conspiracy by our government... and Osama is the good guy, and America is the bad guys...
See how that works out for you.
Maybe you want to hold a candlelight vigil for Osama at ground zero ??
...Then when people outraged and gunning for you, you can simply explain that it was all a big conspiracy by our government... and Osama is the good guy, and America is the bad guys...
See how that works out for you.
Again, how can you possibly think a bunch of guys who can't speak English and never flew airliners before, were able to overpower military pilots and take over the planes?
You probably believe the 'magic' bullet killed Kennedy too.
The only reason we have a Constitution is to protect us FROM OUR GOVERNMENT. If we could trust our government, we could trust them to do everything necessary without a Constitution. But that wasn't the case, and it still isn't.
You probably believe the 'magic' bullet killed Kennedy too.
The only reason we have a Constitution is to protect us FROM OUR GOVERNMENT. If we could trust our government, we could trust them to do everything necessary without a Constitution. But that wasn't the case, and it still isn't.
"""Again, how can you possibly think a bunch of guys who can't speak English and never flew airliners before, were able to overpower military pilots and take over the planes?"""
Because they had weapons for starters...
Secondly, I don't think whether or not they spoke english has anything to do with it. Additionally several of them were educated middle class businessmen, not idiot cavemen as you claim.
Being ex-military doesn't make someone invincible btw.
Because they had weapons for starters...
Secondly, I don't think whether or not they spoke english has anything to do with it. Additionally several of them were educated middle class businessmen, not idiot cavemen as you claim.
Being ex-military doesn't make someone invincible btw.
ASKER
>>Again, how can you possibly think a bunch of guys who can't speak English and never flew airliners before, were able to overpower military pilots and take over the planes?
And as we all know speaking English is a prerequisite for flying a plane.
Anyone know how loch ness monster search is going?
And as we all know speaking English is a prerequisite for flying a plane.
Anyone know how loch ness monster search is going?
....also, they weren't flying airliners...they were crashing them.
I hear is a lot easier to crash on purpose...than to fly and land safely.
I hear is a lot easier to crash on purpose...than to fly and land safely.
Have you ever flown an airliner? Or even a corporate jet for that matter? "I hear" huh? Not very convincing.
I have.
It's not easy. Go bask in your ignorance xuser.
It's so weird that you don't seem to be the least bit upset that the government and military allowed our nation's Capitol to be completely and 100% unprotected on 9/11. The could have crashed into the White House and killed everyone there. There could have crashed into the Capitol and killed everyone there.
Apparently that's A-OK with you huh, xuser? You expect so little of government despite all the taxes you pay.
I have.
It's not easy. Go bask in your ignorance xuser.
It's so weird that you don't seem to be the least bit upset that the government and military allowed our nation's Capitol to be completely and 100% unprotected on 9/11. The could have crashed into the White House and killed everyone there. There could have crashed into the Capitol and killed everyone there.
Apparently that's A-OK with you huh, xuser? You expect so little of government despite all the taxes you pay.
I have microsoft flight simulator...and I am very good at it....
Also... i'm from FL...and I live about 10 miles from where one of the hijackers went to FLIGHT SCHOOL...
....you know...the place where they teach you how to fly planes.
Let me guess...that's a part of the "cover-up" too eh...
Also... i'm from FL...and I live about 10 miles from where one of the hijackers went to FLIGHT SCHOOL...
....you know...the place where they teach you how to fly planes.
Let me guess...that's a part of the "cover-up" too eh...
Ha, I should have guessed. I video game junkie.
Dude, I hate to break the bad news to you but there aren't any flight schools that teach you how to fly airliners. They teach you how to fly little single engine planes. Flight training for airliners is conducted by.... (wait for it)... the AIRLINES.
So how many Boeing 757s does that little flight school that's 10 miles from your house have parked on the tarmac?
Dude, I hate to break the bad news to you but there aren't any flight schools that teach you how to fly airliners. They teach you how to fly little single engine planes. Flight training for airliners is conducted by.... (wait for it)... the AIRLINES.
So how many Boeing 757s does that little flight school that's 10 miles from your house have parked on the tarmac?
I'm gonna be honest DataRich.
I think you are stark raving nuts and not too bright, and I don't normally engage in conversations with crazy or stupid people unless i'm getting paid to do it.
So that said ...i'm done on this thread....at least with you anyway.
I think you are stark raving nuts and not too bright, and I don't normally engage in conversations with crazy or stupid people unless i'm getting paid to do it.
So that said ...i'm done on this thread....at least with you anyway.
Ya, you would assume that. I have a degree in Physics and Chemistry. You're right. I'm an idiot.
Go back to your Microsoft Simulator.
Go back to your Microsoft Simulator.
You have a degree in chemistry, and physics, and you fly 747's...and Bush did 9/11.
Do I have that right ?
You should assume i'm not going to take your word for it at this point.
Do I have that right ?
You should assume i'm not going to take your word for it at this point.
I've never piloted a 747 and I never said I did. I also didn't say Bush did 9/11. You did.
Watch this video and tell me how the nose of an airliner went right through the WTC buildings intact and came out the other end. How is that possible?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5PZxGsYNnY
Watch this video and tell me how the nose of an airliner went right through the WTC buildings intact and came out the other end. How is that possible?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5PZxGsYNnY
I've heard most of the conpsiracy theories and all of them have been debunked. The fact is, the simplest, most probable, plausible explanation is that terrorists flew aircraft in to the buildings, and the ensuing fire heated the steel, weakening it, which brought them down.
Also, regarding Bin Laden, words like "scumbag" and "evil" never come to mind. He may have been a terrorist, and he may have been involved in 9/11, but didn't act out of selfish gain, as most criminals do.
If you want to see the work of criminals, just have a flick through the mexico narcotic's blogg.
If you want to see the work of criminals, just have a flick through the mexico narcotic's blogg.
>> I refuse to believe our entire army, navy and air force were SO incompetent that they watched for 30 minutes as a jet flew from Ohio to the Pentagon. It's simply not possible.
I'm afraid it simply is. For all the so-called professionalism of the security services they often don't know what is going on and certainly don't know how to respond to it. And when they do it is often too late and wrong. The best example is the fall of the Iron Curtain. When the CIA finally caught on to what was happening all the countries except Romania had had their revolutions. The CIA smuggled agents from Germany into Romania to "start a revolution", which incidentally was well under way. Ceauscecu rightly recognized the fifth columnists and resolutely refused to believe that it was a people's revolution. There were for some years after that problems with ex-Securitas members who believed that their "country" was stolen by foreigners. Similarly the Arab revolution is being badly handled. Praising Bahrain, no word from the US during the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions, and hesitation in Libya, inconsistancy towards Syria, and no word about Saudia Arabia and the other Gult States. When one considers the vast quantity of money these spooks consume it is certainly not worth the money.
I'm afraid it simply is. For all the so-called professionalism of the security services they often don't know what is going on and certainly don't know how to respond to it. And when they do it is often too late and wrong. The best example is the fall of the Iron Curtain. When the CIA finally caught on to what was happening all the countries except Romania had had their revolutions. The CIA smuggled agents from Germany into Romania to "start a revolution", which incidentally was well under way. Ceauscecu rightly recognized the fifth columnists and resolutely refused to believe that it was a people's revolution. There were for some years after that problems with ex-Securitas members who believed that their "country" was stolen by foreigners. Similarly the Arab revolution is being badly handled. Praising Bahrain, no word from the US during the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions, and hesitation in Libya, inconsistancy towards Syria, and no word about Saudia Arabia and the other Gult States. When one considers the vast quantity of money these spooks consume it is certainly not worth the money.
...he killed over 3000 innocent people using his crazy brand of religion as justification... and the words scumbag and evil don't come to mind ?
I'm sure he'll go down in the history books as a mild mannered philanthropic goat herder.
Are you serious ?
""If you want to see the work of criminals, just have a flick through the mexico narcotic's blogg. ""
I agree.....but it's a little ridiculous to use one evil terrorist organization to minimize the evils of another.
I'm sure he'll go down in the history books as a mild mannered philanthropic goat herder.
Are you serious ?
""If you want to see the work of criminals, just have a flick through the mexico narcotic's blogg. ""
I agree.....but it's a little ridiculous to use one evil terrorist organization to minimize the evils of another.
Well, he was part of a plot that killed 3000 innocent people -- remember that. He was never tried bu court and jury, but rather held responsible by an angry nation. It seems actually that OBL was more of a spokesperson and financier for Al Quaida, rather then it's operational mastermind. Remember there were many involved, and also those who carried out the attack. Consider also why the attack happened. It's not like they just did it for sadistic pleasure. Call him sick, misguided or whatever, but for me the words evil apply only to people who take pleasure from causing the suffering of another, and even when applied to them the word smacks of biblical fanatism rather. Cruelty, lack of empathy, derangement are the impressions I get.
OBL strikes me as a mentally disturbed person, may be even deranged. This image struck home in the recent photos where he had dyed his beard. It would be interesting to know the truth about his life. I don't know if half the bad stuff we are hearing is made up as part of the wish to mained the demonized image. I mean, it would make sense for the CIA to "add" to the evidence found at his home to make the killing look justified. The porn (indicating hypocrite and non religious), the operational plans(still a threat). They could make up anything they want really. Anything goes now, doesn't it?
OBL strikes me as a mentally disturbed person, may be even deranged. This image struck home in the recent photos where he had dyed his beard. It would be interesting to know the truth about his life. I don't know if half the bad stuff we are hearing is made up as part of the wish to mained the demonized image. I mean, it would make sense for the CIA to "add" to the evidence found at his home to make the killing look justified. The porn (indicating hypocrite and non religious), the operational plans(still a threat). They could make up anything they want really. Anything goes now, doesn't it?
We should also not forget the collatetal damage (killing of innocent civilians) that occurs when the US go to war, 1991 Gulf war being a good example.
""was part of a plot '"
No..he was the leader of Al Qaeda, that makes it HIS plot.
"" It seems actually that OBL was more of a spokesperson and financier ""
Seems to who ? Doesn't seem that way to me. The intel they found in his hideout shows he was actively planning and directing more attacks. Are you really trying to minimize OBL's role to help your argument ? REALLY ? ...He's the LEADER of Al Qaeda ?
I really don't care if OBL didn't get a psychological evaluation and a "fair" trial, I don't think he deserved either. He declared war on the US... and he lost, simple as that.
"" I mean, it would make sense for the CIA to "add" to the evidence found at his home to make the killing look justified. The porn (indicating hypocrite and non religious), the operational plans(still a threat). They could make up anything they want really. Anything goes now, doesn't it? """
Pfffft... yea... OBL was a pure saint, how could he possibly be a porn addict with his 8 wives and 20 something kids?...get real. He was a hypocrite, and of course he was still planning attacks hence he released a video about every 8 months to tell us he was.
OBL is fish food, and i'm glad about that...and anyone who wants to continue his cause can join him.
No..he was the leader of Al Qaeda, that makes it HIS plot.
"" It seems actually that OBL was more of a spokesperson and financier ""
Seems to who ? Doesn't seem that way to me. The intel they found in his hideout shows he was actively planning and directing more attacks. Are you really trying to minimize OBL's role to help your argument ? REALLY ? ...He's the LEADER of Al Qaeda ?
I really don't care if OBL didn't get a psychological evaluation and a "fair" trial, I don't think he deserved either. He declared war on the US... and he lost, simple as that.
"" I mean, it would make sense for the CIA to "add" to the evidence found at his home to make the killing look justified. The porn (indicating hypocrite and non religious), the operational plans(still a threat). They could make up anything they want really. Anything goes now, doesn't it? """
Pfffft... yea... OBL was a pure saint, how could he possibly be a porn addict with his 8 wives and 20 something kids?...get real. He was a hypocrite, and of course he was still planning attacks hence he released a video about every 8 months to tell us he was.
OBL is fish food, and i'm glad about that...and anyone who wants to continue his cause can join him.
He sure liked to film himself. Who has that much footage of themselves walking around, eating, and posing with guns? And a dyed beard? It would be comical if it wasn’t so sickening.
Please do not forget all the people that have died in this process in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. I don't believe any side of this war is right, as it is more political than a concern for justice.
http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-05-02/chris-douglas-roberts-offers-different-perspective-on-death-of-osama-bin-laden
http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-05-02/chris-douglas-roberts-offers-different-perspective-on-death-of-osama-bin-laden
"That's the problem. We don't want to hear anything that isn't our perspective.”
That's right Chris. Got their head stuck up their asses.
I really don't care if OBL didn't get a psychological evaluation and a "fair" trial, I don't think he deserved either. He declared war on the US... and he lost, simple as that.
OBL is fish food, and i'm glad about that...and anyone who wants to continue his cause can join him.
OMG xuserx2000, there is hope for you yet :)
OBL is fish food, and i'm glad about that...and anyone who wants to continue his cause can join him.
OMG xuserx2000, there is hope for you yet :)
http://www.express.co.uk/web/petroltaxcrusade
I agree that the tax is far too high (in Luxembourg we pay the lowest rates in Europe), but if you continually live beyond your means you'll have to face the music sooner or later. And a responsible newspaper would admit to that and campaign against government waste.