Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

imitchellg5 · May 12, 2011, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Athens

Absolutely. Israel is no different then any other state in the region and totally un-trustworthy. The only thing that separates Israel from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan and all the other middle east nut jobs is a different faith. On the surface they are different but deep to the core they are exactly the same as every one else in that region.

Of course, I disagree. Israel's difference is that they have a more Western-style foreign policy outlook and much stronger political ties outside of the region than inside the region, for obvious reasons. That is a reason why Israel is a stronger ally for the US than Jordan and Egypt.

The Final Dakar · 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Do you think the US puts a spot in the budget for aid to Pakistan because we feel bad about them?

I think using the term ally for governmental prostitution is a misnomer. And yes, I think we gave aid to people who actually like us, and believe in our causes too. And I think the nuclear "programme" isn't the source of our strained relations so much as the ISI. Oh, and their populace's general attitude towards us, too.

subego · May 12, 2011, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Not nuclear weapons, nuclear power.

That even makes less sense.

We're being pissy because they want electricity?

Athens · May 12, 2011, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

I think using the term ally for governmental prostitution is a misnomer. And yes, I think we gave aid to people who actually like us, and believe in our causes too. And I think the nuclear "programme" isn't the source of our strained relations so much as the ISI. Oh, and their populace's general attitude towards us, too.

Then why did the US give money to Osama in the 80's. I wouldn't say he liked the US and believed in the your causes.....

Originally Posted by subego

That even makes less sense.

We're being pissy because they want electricity?

The Pakistan and Indian nuclear programs where not for electricity it was for the bomb which both have. Its why they are not at war with each other. Which is actually fine because like Israel they are a Non-signatory State. Its Iran who is developing Nuclear technology for electricity and is also a signatory Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which is why they keep getting focus on the Nuclear activity. IAEA is not getting the access required for them to monitor what Iran is doing which is a violation of the NPT.

The Final Dakar · May 12, 2011, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Athens

Then why did the US give money to Osama in the 80's. I wouldn't say he liked the US and believed in the your causes.....

Stop jumping in Athens. Aside from the question having no real connection to what I said, the answer is self-evident.

turtle777 · May 12, 2011, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

You're saying America should just go FULL IN and start running rampant over other countries' sovereign rights? When has that ever not lead to war in human history? I suppose that doesn't apply to other countries against America, though? Where does this attitude lead?

No one has ever suggested that Osama's whereabouts not be acted upon. You've conveniently made up that strawman.

Strawmen, LOL.

Re-read my first sentence as to what *I* think should be done.

Then shove *your* strawmen back to where you pulled it from.

-t

OreoCookie · May 12, 2011, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by sek929

Seal Team 6 is not a police force, they are soldiers. If there was any indication that Osama, or his guards, were armed and willing to use force they would respond with deadly force.

I don't buy that argument: if the order was to capture Bin Laden alive (killing everyone else if necessary), I'm sure a unit of trained Navy Seals is more than capable -- capturing an unarmed man should be a piece of cake for them.

Originally Posted by sek929

Also, I find the notion of shipping Osama back here, under heavy guard and expense to the US, giving him a lengthy and expensive trial, sentencing him to death, letting him sit on death row for five years while the civilians he considered targets foot the bill, and THEN killing him is any different than putting a bullet in his head like the enemy combatant he was is ludicrous.

Saddam Hussein was tried and convicted in front of a court. He didn't spend years in prison until his execution.

I don't think the money argument has any merit either: the US has spent millions of dollars to track Bin Laden and kill him. I don't think it's a money issue.

Originally Posted by sek929

He got what he deserved, he attacked a nation by killing innocents and got war brought upon him, and warriors finished the job.

The US is a democracy and IMO they should uphold the principles of democracy. One aspect is that people who are accused of a crime (even if their guilt is clear) are tried in court and sentenced there.

sek929 · May 12, 2011, 06:05 PM

I guess every insurgent and enemy will need to get shipped back here for a proper trial then, eh?

Bin Laden wasn't a simple criminal, he was an enemy combatant. The rules of trial by peers does not apply to warfare.

ShortcutToMoncton · May 12, 2011, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Strawmen, LOL.

Re-read my first sentence as to what *I* think should be done.

Then shove *your* strawmen back to where you pulled it from.

-t

Shockingly lame response, coming from you. Normally I expect better...since you did, very clearly, come up with a strawman argument that no one had suggested. And then of course chose to dodge my response instead of answering.

turtle777 · May 12, 2011, 08:16 PM

Canuckistani Humor ?

-t

ShortcutToMoncton · May 12, 2011, 08:17 PM

Yeah, but that isn't the question. I think everyone rational agrees with the death sentence.

The argument is, should it have been this way, given the circumstances? And in my mind, it's a valid point.

ShortcutToMoncton · May 12, 2011, 08:20 PM

What's with the "Canuckistani" bit?

Is this your version of Barack Hussien or whatever? Trying to fan the flames or some sort? Very secure of you.

greg

Athens · May 12, 2011, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by sek929

I guess every insurgent and enemy will need to get shipped back here for a proper trial then, eh?

Bin Laden wasn't a simple criminal, he was an enemy combatant. The rules of trial by peers does not apply to warfare.

No but the Rules of war do.

Kerrigan · May 12, 2011, 09:03 PM

These cultural critics/theorists are generally worthless, and all they do is write garbage that other critics/theorists read, who in turn write their own garbage metacriticisms in response..and the cycle continues, rendering them all irrelevant.

imitchellg5 · May 12, 2011, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by subego

That even makes less sense.

We're being pissy because they want electricity?

We are in Iran too.

imitchellg5 · May 12, 2011, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by sek929

Bin Laden wasn't a simple criminal, he was an enemy combatant.

Was he?

sek929 · May 12, 2011, 10:57 PM

Obviously you have an opinion, so why don't you just tell me what you think instead of asking a question you already have an answer for, and I clearly already answered.

Show me how Bin Laden was a run-of-the-mill criminal to be tried in court and not an enemy combatant that openly attacked a US warship.

subego · May 12, 2011, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

We are in Iran too.

Because Iran doesn't have nukes yet.

Laminar · May 12, 2011, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

So basically they're prostitutes. They take our money because they need/want it, not because they enjoy or believe in what they're doing.

This is not a reliable ally. (And that's why we had surprise buttsex)

I want to make the last line my signature. Also, whoopee for another Athens/Israel battle.

imitchellg5 · May 13, 2011, 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by sek929

Obviously you have an opinion, so why don't you just tell me what you think instead of asking a question you already have an answer for, and I clearly already answered.

Show me how Bin Laden was a run-of-the-mill criminal to be tried in court and not an enemy combatant that openly attacked a US warship.

I didn't say he is a run-of-the-mill criminal. Are you certain that HE openly attacked a warship, or did he sign off on a plan to attack a warship? Cause I know that after WWII ended, we didn't shoot Nazi commanders in the face, they went before military tribunals.

turtle777 · May 13, 2011, 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

What's with the "Canuckistani" bit?

Is this your version of Barack Hussien or whatever? Trying to fan the flames or some sort? Very secure of you.

greg

Shockingly lame response.

Oh, wait.

-t

OreoCookie · May 13, 2011, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by sek929

I guess every insurgent and enemy will need to get shipped back here for a proper trial then, eh?

Bin Laden wasn't `every insurgent,' he was literally America's Most Wanted.

ShortcutToMoncton · May 13, 2011, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Shockingly lame response.

Oh, wait.

-t

Annnnnnnnnd still dodging any attempt at an answer I see.

Do you or do you not think that if America decides to take international military action, it should simply violate the sovereign rights of any State it chooses even if it is not at war with that state? That is what you've stated so far in this thread, except in a murky and unclear and unexplained way.

And if so, do you think this is a right that other states also have against America? If China locates a noted and feared Tibetan terrorist in Seattle, are you okay with an undercover military operation on American soil without any notification?

Let the squirming begin.

turtle777 · May 13, 2011, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Do you or do you not think that if America decides to take international military action, it should simply violate the sovereign rights of any State it chooses even if it is not at war with that state? That is what you've stated so far in this thread, except in a murky and unclear and unexplained way.

Yes, *IF* they chose to go to war, they should at least get the job done.
Every war violates the sovereign rights of a State, so that's a moot point in the context of a war.
Somebody and somewhere will complain anyways. There are no "good" wars.

Do it with conviction, and don't give a f*ck, or don't do it at all. I'm against half-assedness.

What you are doing is being a judge, using your *own* standards, defining what would be an acceptable reason for military action, and what would not be. Fine, but that's subjective, and can hardly be used to define foreign policy, let alone satisfy the countless different opinions out there.

If you want to have only military action that everybody agrees upon, you get non-sense like the UN, that gets nothing done. Freaking waste of time and money.

-t

ShortcutToMoncton · May 13, 2011, 06:40 AM

And the Tibetan terrorist?

Athens · May 13, 2011, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Yes, *IF* they chose to go to war, they should at least get the job done.
Every war violates the sovereign rights of a State, so that's a moot point in the context of a war.
Somebody and somewhere will complain anyways. There are no "good" wars.

Do it with conviction, and don't give a f*ck, or don't do it at all. I'm against half-assedness.

What you are doing is being a judge, using your *own* standards, defining what would be an acceptable reason for military action, and what would not be. Fine, but that's subjective, and can hardly be used to define foreign policy, let alone satisfy the countless different opinions out there.

If you want to have only military action that everybody agrees upon, you get non-sense like the UN, that gets nothing done. Freaking waste of time and money.

-t

So your saying that the US was at war with Pakistan then? Basically the US committed a war crime because they shot a unarmed prisoner dead then stole the body and dumped it in the ocean like trash. But hey its the US it can do anything it wants for now.

ShortcutToMoncton · May 13, 2011, 07:09 AM

No, the US was at war with Osama.

It's a pretty key difference.

ebuddy · May 13, 2011, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by Athens

So your saying that the US was at war with Pakistan then? Basically the US committed a war crime because they shot a unarmed prisoner dead then stole the body and dumped it in the ocean like trash. But hey its the US it can do anything it wants for now.

So... you believe the account now?

Our relationship with Pakistan is complicated. You see it's sorta like a neighbor who has given you the keys to his house to help with things while he's away. You're often in your neighbor's house, it's not really a strange thing. The relationship with the neighbor has been complicated because while you and he generally get along, one of his kids killed one of your kids 10 years ago and his kid has supposedly been missing the entire time. You've long-suspected the killer has been hiding in your neighbor's basement, but your otherwise trustworthy neighbor insists he doesn't know a thing. You finally have evidence that the killer is indeed in your neighbor's basement so when your neighbor pulls out of the driveway to go to work, you use the keys your neighbor gave you and you collect the criminal.

You might get charged with a few crimes, but they're not really going to stick.

ShortcutToMoncton · May 13, 2011, 08:25 AM

Hahahaha

The Final Dakar · May 13, 2011, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Bin Laden wasn't `every insurgent,' he was literally America's Most Wanted.

Serious question: How often do we capture vs kill people on our most wanted list? (Anyone who knows)

Edit: I guess quick reply doesn't work...

turtle777 · May 13, 2011, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Our relationship with Pakistan is complicated. You see it's sorta like a neighbor who has given you the keys to his house to help with things while he's away. You're often in your neighbor's house, it's not really a strange thing. The relationship with the neighbor has been complicated because while you and he generally get along, one of his kids killed one of your kids 10 years ago and his kid has supposedly been missing the entire time. You've long-suspected the killer has been hiding in your neighbor's basement, but your otherwise trustworthy neighbor insists he doesn't know a thing. You finally have evidence that the killer is indeed in your neighbor's basement so when your neighbor pulls out of the driveway to go to work, you use the keys your neighbor gave you and you collect the criminal.

You might get charged with a few crimes, but they're not really going to stick.

Awesome

-t

subego · May 13, 2011, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

And if so, do you think this is a right that other states also have against America? If China locates a noted and feared Tibetan terrorist in Seattle, are you okay with an undercover military operation on American soil without any notification?

"Okay" may be putting it too strongly, but that's how the game is played.

Realpolitik is realpolitik. They're welcome to try, and we're welcome to try and stop them.

imitchellg5 · May 13, 2011, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

Serious question: How often do we capture vs kill people on our most wanted list? (Anyone who knows)

Edit: I guess quick reply doesn't work...

Most are captured or surrender. Wikipedia's lists from the previous decades give an idea: FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, 1990s - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ShortcutToMoncton · May 13, 2011, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by subego

"Okay" may be putting it too strongly, but that's how the game is played.

Realpolitik is realpolitik. They're welcome to try, and we're welcome to try and stop them.

The answer I was looking for

The Final Dakar · May 13, 2011, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Most are captured or surrender. Wikipedia's lists from the previous decades give an idea: FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, 1990s - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, even the foreign ones (lots of arrests in Pakistan).

Oero's objection has some validity.

ShortcutToMoncton · May 13, 2011, 12:21 PM

Yeah, and to be clear: outside of the Usual Suspects, I think everyone is happy that Bin Laden is good and dead. It's what should have happened.

I guess the debate here is whether it should have happened another way. The reason could be moral, political, or otherwise, but the more I've thought about it, the more I've been reaching a conclusion that it probably should have.

greg

Laminar · May 13, 2011, 01:45 PM

Well I think it was a government conspiracy.
Ball, begin rolling

imitchellg5 · May 13, 2011, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

Well I think it was a government conspiracy.

What a cutting remark!
Wouldn't killing someone covertly be considered a government conspiracy?

The Final Dakar · May 13, 2011, 02:47 PM

I think iMitchell has officially become that toddler you need to watch what you say around because he'll pick something up and repeat it ad nauseum if you don't.

imitchellg5 · May 13, 2011, 03:09 PM

What a cutting remark!
It's all about the white type, brah.

The Final Dakar · May 13, 2011, 03:14 PM

It's all bout killing a good joke, brah.

imitchellg5 · May 13, 2011, 03:17 PM

I don't mind killing someone else's joke, brah.

The Final Dakar · May 13, 2011, 03:19 PM

You're a joke terrorist, brah.

SpaceMonkey · May 13, 2011, 03:26 PM

Joke terrorist (both Jeff Dunham and the puppet):

The Final Dakar · May 13, 2011, 03:31 PM

Of course, some of our more staunch PL denizens won't believe the joke is dead until they see the body.

imitchellg5 · May 13, 2011, 03:34 PM

Jokes are government conspiracies perpetrated by mass media.

lpkmckenna · May 13, 2011, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

It's a situation where he's technically right, but no one gives a shit, ya know?

Also, to fan That Flame: Chomsky's thoughts on Osama's death

Christopher Hitchens: Chomsky's pronouncements about Osama Bin Laden are stupid and ignorant.

I can't fncking stand Chomsky.

Athens · May 14, 2011, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Yeah, and to be clear: outside of the Usual Suspects, I think everyone is happy that Bin Laden is good and dead. It's what should have happened.

I guess the debate here is whether it should have happened another way. The reason could be moral, political, or otherwise, but the more I've thought about it, the more I've been reaching a conclusion that it probably should have.

greg

Buckaroo · May 14, 2011, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

It's a situation where he's technically right, but no one gives a shit, ya know?

Also, to fan That Flame: Chomsky's thoughts on Osama's death

No he is not technically right in any way. He should be the next one they hunt down.

Wiskedjak · May 14, 2011, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

No he is not technically right in any way. He should be the next one they hunt down.

And *this* is exactly why they should have made every effort to take Osama into custody and prosecute him publicly rather than assassinate him in secret; to keep people like you from thinking anybody you don't like can be "hunted down" without any form of due process. Tell me, why do you think Omar bin Laden should be hunted down, other than to satisfy your own blood lust?