Armchair NSC
Poll
 | 10 votes (83.33%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 2 votes (16.66%) |
12 members have voted
Quote: AyecarumbaIf you were the President of the United States, would you have used a different approach to the Bin Laden puzzle?
I will give credit where credit is due and say it was done about as flawless as could be expected. Only change is I would not have made it a point to cozyh up to the muslim world in the speech after. No apologizing for anything. More of a speech along the lines of, "We got him. Attack us and this is how you end up."
Quote: AyecarumbaIf you were the President of the United States, would you have used a different approach to the Bin Laden puzzle?
I would have done everything possible to take him alive so we could beat and torture him for weeks then execute him live on pay per view. But that's just me.
But if it had gone down like it did (which was an amazingly done operation) I would never in a million years allowed burial at sea. No way I would have respected his religious traditions since he didn't respect us in the slightest. Bury him in a pig carcass facing away from Mecca (or wherever it is they want to face when they're buried).
Word is coming out that waterboarding and other "strong interrogation" techniques were used to get the information leading to him being located. When fighting lawless terrorists who follow none of the traditional conventions of war, we must use all means possible to extract vital information. They choose war with us; we didn't choose to fight Islamic extremists. They only have to be right 1% of the time; our folks have to get it right 100% of the time or they fail. It isn't an easy mission.
This outcome started in one Presidency (they got the initial info four years ago) and ended in another. We could not trust Pakistan to keep the secret so we did not tell them. The President did what needed to be done. He put the right people on the right task at the right time. This is a triumph for ALL who were attacked by this monster and his worthless minions.
Quote: JimMorrisonBury him in a pig carcass facing away from Mecca (or wherever it is they want to face when they're buried).
I sympathize.
But, really, beating up on an enemy after he's dead is just petty and undignified. And any burial, anywhere in the world, would attract followers. Better to dispose of the body.
Quote: RonCI realize many oppose the burial of Obama at sea...but I think it was handled well. ...
Not yet, anyway. And I think even our president would oppose that being done any time soon.
I think taking the evidence and burial swiftly is sensible, dignified and far better than bin laden deserved. Thus proving the US Navy is civilised, and by extension, the US is too.
Quote: thecesspitI was told by people wiser than me that the mark of a civilised country is how it deals with the dead.
.
Well, the other thing is, the official position of the U.S. and other allies on Islam is going to reflect that we've had troops interacting with Muslim Iraqi and Afghan troops for years now on the same side respectively. It may seem like a fine idea to take a dim view of Islam, but maybe not so much if your ass is in jeopardy.
Quote: AZDuffman"We got him. Attack us and this is how you end up."
Did he attack us?
After the September 11th attacks, American troops, American weapons and the American economy were squandered in a no-win war in the Middle East that had no end points or escape points, no clear policies except to ignore political realities, and no benefit to the USA, only to Israel.
So if you want to know who was truly responsible, you look to who benefited by it.
Were the Bolsheveks responsible for WW1? Were the Russians responsible for WWII? Were black Americans responsible for the US Civil War? Were anti-gun groups responsible for Reagan getting shot? If I catch a famous home run am I responsible for the hit?Quote: FleaStiffSo if you want to know who was truly responsible, you look to who benefited by it.
I'm no fan of recent US foreign policy, but come on...
Quote: VirgiAt the end of WWII we blasted the hell out of two Japanese cities, and I can only imagine the amount of satisfied revenge felt by all the American families who sufferred through the effects of Pearl Harbor and from losing their men to the war.
Now is no different. As an American I feel cheated that we didn't get to watch his body burn on big screen TV's along with a hundred of those violence-inducing Korans that his followers use as corruptive tools.
If that had happened there truly would have been no victory at all.
I don't recall much celebration about bombing Japan with atom bomb, just joy that the war was over and won. Certainly reading and listening to the men who were on Enola Gay it was getting a job done, with a realisation afterwards of what they'd wrought. Sure, there was certainly some who dance and cheer in revenge. The wounds of the Japanese occupations and treatment of PoWs has not yet healed fully. But I'm sure most didn't feel cheated that they didn't get to watch some horror porn revenge video of Nagasaki vapourizing. The pictures I've seen are not pleasant.
Quote: thecesspitIf that had happened there truly would have been no victory at all.
I don't recall much celebration about bombing Japan with atom bomb, just joy that the war was over and won. Certainly reading and listening to the men who were on Enola Gay it was getting a job done, with a realisation afterwards of what they'd wrought. Sure, there was certainly some who dance and cheer in revenge. The wounds of the Japanese occupations and treatment of PoWs has not yet healed fully. But I'm sure most didn't feel cheated that they didn't get to watch some horror porn revenge video of Nagasaki vapourizing. The pictures I've seen are not pleasant.
There was a lot of celebration http://www.life.com/gallery/22967/image/72432384#index/3
Quote: JimMorrisonThere was a lot of celebration http://www.life.com/gallery/22967/image/72432384#index/3
That's celebration about VJ-day, which was as a result of the bombs (Japan surrendered 6 days after the second bomb). I'm not sure it was celebration that the bomb was dropped and revenge was had.
Though it seems I may well be wrong after a some further research. The wikipedia article on the bombings points to a couple of surveys that suggest 13% of the US wanted the extermination of the Japanese in 1945 and a big minority of people wished that more bombs could have been dropped on Japan.
That doesn't mean people celebrated the bombs though, but implies it probably did happen. I'm sure more there's more detailed info out there.
Quote: thecesspit... The wikipedia article on the bombings points to a couple of surveys that suggest 13% of the US wanted the extermination of the Japanese in 1945 and a big minority of people wished that more bombs could have been dropped on Japan.
This post is not so off-topic as the next couple of sentences may sound.
My favorite musical group is Small Potatoes, the husband/wife duo of Rich Prezioso and Jacquie Manning. They write the great majority of their own material and are from the Chicago area, though they seem to be traveling and performing in small venues all over the country almost continuously. If you have never seen/heard them, you should give them a try.
One of the songs written by Rich is called "1000 Candles, 1000 Cranes", and it directly relates to feelings about the bombing of Japan, feelings both in 1945 and later. It is extremely poignant. A video of one of their performances of this song is available here. If you have 5 or 6 minutes to spare, give it a look/listen, and be sure to listen very closely to the words throughout. Note: Rich told me once that the song is not genuinely autobiographical but is his compilation of emotions described by others from both sides of the issue many years after the blast.
For a look at a lighter, humorous number from Small Potatoes, try this video of a performance of "Waltz of the Wallflowers", a number written by Jacquie.
If neither of those songs tugs at your emotions, then ....
Quote: VirgiAnimals understand & respect one thing only: violence.
Sadly, that kind of logic ends up with people flying planes into buildings and bombing underground stations and train depots. Some of the terrorists view you, Virgi, as an animal, and the only thing YOU will respond to is the death of YOUR loved ones.
I's not coddling to a religion to treat a corpse with some semblance of respect. It is showing there is a difference between the US and Al Qaeda, despite your desire to see pain and suffering on the TV for your pleasure and satisfaction.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Nietzche
France not allowing the US to violate French Airspace. Reagan would have sent the rescue team across France and had them lighten their load by dropping bombs to fly higher if France continued to protest. Any chance France would have called Reagan's semi-bluff?
Quote: buzzpaffGive Obama credit for ignoring Pakistan government. Jimmy Carter's failed attempt at rescuing the hostages in Iran was in part due to
France not allowing the US to violate French Airspace.
There's no French airpsace anywhere close to Iran.
Quote:Reagan would have sent the rescue team across France and had them lighten their load by dropping bombs to fly higher if France continued to protest. Any chance France would have called Reagan's semi-bluff?
Reagan was too good a statesman to threaten an ally, even an uncooperative one. In fact when he struck Lybia in 86, F-111s flying out of bases in England had to detour around the Ibearian peninsula because France did not allow them to fly over their territory.
I've often wondered why Reagan chose that, instead of sticking to the A-6s he had on carriers in the Mediterranean at the time.
Sure, Carter was a bumbling fool in foreign affairs, mcuh like Obama, and Reagan was quite competent. But facts remain facts.
Quote: Nareed
Sure, Carter was a bumbling fool in foreign affairs, mcuh like Obama, and Reagan was quite competent.
Agreed. And, oddly, Reagan is the only one of the three without a Nobel Peace Prize on his mantle.
Quote: buzzpaffWere American hostages involved Raegan would have flown over France .
Wouldn't they have been airlifted to Germany, then flown on an parabolic arctic route back to the U.S.?
Quote: buzzpaffWere American hostages involved Raegan would have flown over France .
Or in fact taken off from the Gulf, rather than bugger around over France (if we are talking Iranian Hostage crisis).
In Libya, I'm sure we could have found a British base in Malta or Cyprus to organise a use of force for a rescue. The bombers happened to be in the UK at time and it was easier to run the mission from there at the time. Plus a bombing run is a very different operation from a land, extract and bug out type mission.
Quote: rdw4potusAgreed. And, oddly, Reagan is the only one of the three without a Nobel Peace Prize on his mantle.
If we apply the truth in advertisement criterion to the Nobel prizes, then the Peace prize should be called "The Nobel Prize for Left-Wing Activism."
Quote: thecesspitNon of the EU countries would allow the over flight of the bombers over their airspace for that Libyan raid.
Great Britain did.
SIGH
Quote: NareedGreat Britain did.
Well, yes, indeed they did, which caused much swirl and scandal.
Quote:Other (explain)
none of the above, do exactly what they did
Quote: NareedThere's no French airpsace anywhere close to Iran.
Reagan was too good a statesman to threaten an ally, even an uncooperative one. In fact when he struck Lybia in 86, F-111s flying out of bases in England had to detour around the Ibearian peninsula because France did not allow them to fly over their territory.
I've often wondered why Reagan chose that, instead of sticking to the A-6s he had on carriers in the Mediterranean at the time.
Sure, Carter was a bumbling fool in foreign affairs, mcuh like Obama, and Reagan was quite competent. But facts remain facts.
I've wondered anout not using carrier-based aircraft myself. If I had to guess I would say the carrier based aircraft had neither the range nor the bomb-capacity to handle the job. If you have to refuel anyways, why not use the heavier aircraft?
Just an intelligent guess of course.
