|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690 |
J/C
Ok...I accept the Presidents decision.
I think the best thing the President could do is bring in former President Bush.
A....Bush deserves some credit in this.
B...It would show some bipartisan offering.
C...It would quell the distrust of many.
Just a thought.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803 |
I think he is to at least some extent. He reached out to Bush and invited him to ground zero. Bush politely declined but the offer was there.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
Quote:
Spoken like somebody who really wants to be at war with Muslims for the next 500 years. Look, there are a relatively small minority of Muslims who will pick up arms and kill or will desecrate a soldiers body... then there is a huge number of Muslims who dislike violence by all sides.. and in the middle is a wedge of Muslims who don't like us, maybe even hate us, but are not willing to strap a bomb to their abdomen and try to blow something up.. that is the group we should care about because they are the ones who could be persuaded..
This is what I think:
Radical Islam has been at war with "infidels" since its inception. If there are more than 1.2 billion Muslims in the world (there is) and conservative estimates are that 7% of them are radical Muslims, it means we face an enemy of 84 million - formidable even if they are decentralized. (Nazi Germany had an armed force of 80 million.) Let's say 7% is high; say its only 1% - that is still a lot of jihadists ... 12 million ... even if decentralized.
These aren't moderates, these are people who cannot be reasoned with. There is no middle ground, no meeting ground, no point where we say ""we'll have to agree to disagree". Simply put: we cannot coexist - us, because they cannot abide our existence (as infidels) and them, because that is what guides them in their intentions towards us.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,356
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,356 |
Peen,
The first person President Obama called was President Bush.
He also invited President Bush to Ground Zero tomorrow. President Bush said no thanks.
Also, about releasing the photos; I don't want them released if they would hurt our troops or national security. Maybe release them later.
A congressman who is on the intelligence committee (Mike Rogers-repub from Michigan) said that he saw the photos and it was a head shot and it was pretty rough). He said that he was sure it was Bin Laden. We also have DNA and they say it is him (99.7 accurate). One of his wives and daughter say that it was him. We have lots of DVD's and computers and flash drives. Release some of that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
Quote:
Quote:
Spoken like somebody who really wants to be at war with Muslims for the next 500 years. Look, there are a relatively small minority of Muslims who will pick up arms and kill or will desecrate a soldiers body... then there is a huge number of Muslims who dislike violence by all sides.. and in the middle is a wedge of Muslims who don't like us, maybe even hate us, but are not willing to strap a bomb to their abdomen and try to blow something up.. that is the group we should care about because they are the ones who could be persuaded..
This is what I think:
Radical Islam has been at war with "infidels" since its inception. If there are more than 1.2 billion Muslims in the world (there is) and conservative estimates are that 7% of them are radical Muslims, it means we face an enemy of 84 million - formidable even if they are decentralized. (Nazi Germany had an armed force of 80 million.) Let's say 7% is high; say its only 1% - that is still a lot of jihadists ... 12 million ... even if decentralized.
These aren't moderates, these are people who cannot be reasoned with. There is no middle ground, no meeting ground, no point where we say ""we'll have to agree to disagree". Simply put: we cannot coexist - us, because they cannot abide our existence (as infidels) and them, because that is what guides them in their intentions towards us.
Care to back up your figures. I knew some Muslims, and they supported Hamas as the rightful Palestinian authority, but they weren't fanatics....It just appears to me that those numbers are off.
When it comes to hardline extremists I think the numbers are much, much lower.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803 |
Quote:
A congressman who is on the intelligence committee (Mike Rogers-repub from Michigan) said that he saw the photos and it was a head shot and it was pretty rough). He said that he was sure it was Bin Laden. We also have DNA and they say it is him (99.7 accurate). One of his wives and daughter say that it was him. We have lots of DVD's and computers and flash drives. Release some of that.
Now I heard the White House hasn't even released the pictures to Congress. There seems to be some confusion about everything that has happened and it is continuing. All I know is that I am giving mad props to Obama for what he decided to do.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803 |
Could the bin Laden Raid Have Revealed a Secret New Helicopter? Michelle Travierso – Wed May 4, 5:40 pm ET A picture of the tail rotor of the chopper that the Navy Seals' Team Six detonated revealed unfamiliar features. Reports say it could be a new, secret helicopter. When the Team Six members reached Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad one of the choppers made a "controlled but hard landing," according to reports, probably due to higher than expected temperatures. Temperatures affects the density of the air, and low density makes it harder for the rotor to sustain the weight of the chopper, especially if it was near its maximum weight (being packed with soldiers and fuel to fly in from Afghanistan). Abbottabad is about 1200 meters above the sea level, and altitude also affects air density. (Inside the Osama bin Laden Strike: How America Got Its Man.) So what machine exactly experienced the hard landing described above? Short answer: we don't know for sure. Long answer: It seems that the tail rotor visible in the picture belongs to a highly modified version of the H-60, the chopper of choice of the special forces for more than 30 years. Aviation Week doesn't beat around the bush, claiming: "A previously undisclosed, classified stealth helicopter apparently was part of the U.S. task force that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan on May 1." Stealth technology on helicopters is not itself new, but the fact that a previously unknown machine was used in this raid is yet another proof of the degree of importance that this mission had for U.S. commanders. (Watch President Obama's announcement of Osama bin Laden's death.) Aviation Week then goes techie and explains what we can see from that picture: "Photos disseminated via the European PressPhoto agency and attributed to an anonymous stringer show that the helicopter’s tail features stealth-configured shapes on the boom and the tail rotor hub fairings, swept stabilizers and a 'dishpan' cover over a five-or-six-blade tail rotor. It has a silver-loaded infrared suppression finish similar to that seen on V-22s." Low radar visibility was essential, for the Pakistani air force would have either scrambled its jets if an unknown threat to its airspace (and near the country's best military academy!) was detected, or fired its surface to air missiles. It's possibly more proof of the fact that Pakistan really knew nothing about the mission - or at least its first wave of attack - until it ended. (See pictures of Osama bin Laden.) This would explain why the Seals wasted critically precious time to blew up the mysterious helicopter and why many experts had problems identifying its remains. It's unclear what Pakistan could have made of the downed chopper, but growing ties between Pakistani and Chinese armed forces could have made the destruction of such new machine a must. China and Pakistan, over the past two decades, have developed a multi role combat aircraft called JF-17 and an advanced trainer, the JL-8. The Navy Seals usually fly in the famed Sikorsky UH-60, popularized by the movie Black Hawk Down, in which two UH-60 were shot down in Somalia, resulting in the death of 18 men. Black Hawk Down was a scenario, insiders say, that together with first attempt to rescue the hostages held at the U.S. embassy in 1980 in Iran, that's been evoked constantly in the planning phases leading to the May 1 raid, as examples of potentially disastrous outcomes. (Via Aviation Week) http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110504/us...fullnationyahoo
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
Quote:
I don't get the whole picture thing. Is it some kind of morbid curiosity? I just don't get it. Why do people feel that it is so necessary to see the death face of OBL.
Is it a trust thing?
Why would anyone want to see a bloody corpse?
I watched on TV as the towers were hit by the 2nd plane and then fell. I watched as the 3rd jet hit the pentagon. I watched as 2 fighter jets went supersonic over my neighborhood on their way to shoot down flight 93 in PA. I'm still convinced to this day that those fighter pilots took out one of the engines on that plane and brought it down.
I'd like to see that picture, just to see that man dead. It does a soul good to see that evil has been defeated.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,535
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,535 |
Quote:
Quote:
You think we're going to see them anytime?
I shot and killed Big Foot yesterday, dumped him in the lake though, didn't want to anger the locals.
Trust me, I got him 
Oddly enough, I've noticed GM hasn't been posting as much...
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Here's a snippet of the upcoming "60 Minutes" interview of Obama that will air on Sunday. Video Link Interviewer: Did you see the pictures? Obama: Yes. I: What was your reaction when you saw them? Obama: It was him. ___ I would have thought he'd have a different reaction than that. --- Ad free link
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445 |
Quote:
J/C
Ok...I accept the Presidents decision.
I think the best thing the President could do is bring in former President Bush.
A....Bush deserves some credit in this.
B...It would show some bipartisan offering.
C...It would quell the distrust of many.
Just a thought.
I agree...Bush was in office when 9/11 went down...He made the call to start this war on terror...
He really should be in NYC today right beside Obama...I'm surprised he won't be...
Pictures?...I don't need to see one...I'd rather see an underwater video of sharks rippin' that bodybag apart...
Will the pictures PO some of these A-Holes?...Sure it will...This guy was Worshipped for years...Seeing his blown apart face might just instill a bit of Fear into some of these ying-yangs at the same time...They'd think that their Hero isn't quite as Invincible as they thought...
Reminds me of Steven Seagals' Marked for Death flick when they held up Screwface's head in front of his Worshippers...
BTW...Obama did this impeccably well...No need for any "Joint Effort" BS...Do it ourselves...No need for any UN blessings...Get in...Get out...And hopefully the hardware they took is invaluable...
Me?...I have zero doubt this was him...
Zawahiri You're NEXT...
Go Browns!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Quote:
I agree...Bush was in office when 9/11 went down...He made the call to start this war on terror...
He really should be in NYC today right beside Obama...I'm surprised he won't be...
The invitation was extended to Bush, which is all Obama can do. As has been written, Bush was one of the first phone calls Obama made after our SEALS completed their mission, so it's not like anyone was trying to snub Bush.
Why didn't Bush accept the invitation?...JMHO, but I believe Bush is enjoying his life, out of politics, out of the limelight and for him, he just didn't feel the need to be at ground zero.
I can accept Bush's decision and I don't need any explanation why he decided not to be at ground zero today.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I believe you are right. I also believe that Bush genuinely doesn't want this to become political with segments of the crowd booing him and cheering Obama and others booing Obama and cheering him... That is not something that he or Obama could control but is something that could happen if the two appeared together and that is NOT what this should be about. That is just my opinion but whatever his reasons, I can respect his decision to decline.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
I agree, and I think it's plain and simple,...the press would absolutely make it into something it isn't anyway. Everything from a bipartisan, patriotic reunion to a "see-what-I-got-done-that-you-couldn't" slamfest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510 |
Bush has repeatedly said that former Presidents (in his opinion) should fade into the background, and not become politically involved in current affairs. He has lent his name and support to disaster relief and such, but he seems perfectly happy being a former President, and as close to an apolitical being as is possible.
I don't think that he wanted the site of the 9-11 sites turned into a circus, (which the media would have done) so he passed.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Quote:
turned into a circus, (which the media would have done)
No, the media would NEVER do that.
I wasn't a big fan of President Bush, but I can totally understand his decision here. As others have said, it just would have been a big distraction.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
J/C
I have been pleasantly surprised at how this event has been handled from both sides.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,099
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,099 |
as have I. It's as good an example of overall class and professionalism as we've seen..... probably since 9/11
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577 |
web page Some interesting questions here.. and I KNOW how you dawgs love a debate lol.. What are rules on killing bad guys? Thursday, May 5, 2011 03:08 AM By Victor Davis Hanson The welcome end of Osama bin Laden at the hands of helicopter-borne American military commandos raises a number of issues. Americans rejoiced at news of the end of this psychopathic mass murderer, and, privately, are probably relieved that he was not to be captured and extradited to Guantanamo. If bin Laden had been taken alive, we might be revisiting the controversy surrounding the Obama administration's failed efforts to try in a civilian federal court bin Laden's subordinate, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - the 9/11 planner. But what, exactly, are the moral, legal or practical rules in going after terrorist leaders or the savage dictators of rogue regimes? We went into a foreign country to kill, not capture, bin Laden. Was that killing permissible since a firefight preceded it or because he was a terrorist rather than a head of state? Furor surrounded the waterboarding of Mohammed that purportedly resulted in valuable intelligence about future terrorist operations. But why was that considered immoral and illegal when we routinely act as judge, jury and executioner of suspected terrorists through predator drone attacks inside Pakistan? Mohammed, a confessed killer, was one of just three detainees waterboarded. In contrast, we have executed from the air well over 1,500 suspected terrorists by Predators. President Barack Obama has ordered four times as many drone attacks in the past two years as former President George W. Bush did in eight. Are those killings more constitutionally suspect than Bush's treatment of the three terrorists at Guantanamo? Last week, NATO warplanes deliberately targeted Moammar Gadhafi's family compound and residence in Tripoli, purportedly killing the dictator's youngest son, Saif. A surviving son, also named Saif, not long ago was a Western darling who bought a doctorate from the London School of Economics, and wined and dined Western intellectuals and oil executives. At what point do dictators' sons devolve from darlings to demons? The United States had just days earlier sent two predator drones to Libya - no doubt to help the British and French focus their attacks on the Gadhafi family. Are such targeted airborne assassinations the type of killings expressly forbidden by U.S. law? Or are they permissible on the grounds that enemy dictators are military commanders - and their fortified homes are, thus, legitimate wartime targets? Could we then legally, morally or practically drop a team in Tripoli to kill Gadhafi and his son in the manner that we killed bin Laden and his son? What are the rules that govern the killing of enemy leaders? First, it seems OK to assassinate a terrorist kingpin either by air attack or commando raid. But legal and moral problems arise if he is captured, detained, waterboarded or tried in a military tribunal. A quick death seems to end almost all legal discussions and controversies. Second, there is no problem in assassinating a dictator as long as the mission meets two criteria: We must be engaged in some sort of conventional battle with his forces, and we have to kill him through aerial bombing. For some reason, vaporization by a bomb seems to raise fewer ethical issues than execution by a sniper's bullet. Third, targeted assassinations are better done under liberal presidents, who are more likely to be seen as humanitarians who only reluctantly order such killings. The Bush anti-terrorism protocols - tribunals, renditions, preventative detentions, Predator assassination missions, Guantanamo Bay - were decried as illegal and immoral. Such furor vanished, however, when President Obama embraced or expanded them all. The effort to pre-emptively remove the mass-murdering Saddam Hussein to foster democracy in his absence was seen by many in the media, universities and legal community as morally wrong - and yet pre-emptively bombing Gadhafi to foster democracy in his absence is now considered morally justified. Fourth, success seems to end moral ambiguity in much the same way failure invites it. Had we gone into Pakistani territory and landed in the wrong compound, legal and ethical issues would have been raised. If we keep killing members of the Gadhafi family without hitting Gadhafi himself, at some point the denial of targeted assassination will seem empty. Targeted assassinations apparently have to work on the first or second attempt to be deemed moral and legal. In recent years the United States has been in a number of undeclared wars against terrorists, insurgents and authoritarian dictators - Mohamed Farrah Aidid, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Slobodan Milosevic, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Manuel Noriega, Mullah Omar, Moammar Gadhafi, the Taliban, al-Qaida and others - whom we sought to kill, capture or put on trial. It is about time that we clarified the rules that determine their fates. Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510 |
As far as I'm concerned ..... if a foreign leader is directly responsible for .... or harbors those directly responsible for the deaths of American citizens ..... then he has signed his own death warrant. If a terrorist wants to utilize a campaign of terror against unarmed citizens of the United States, then that terrorist is subject to being killed on sight.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577 |
I kinda have to agree. If you make war on the American people, I think it's reasonable to expect that the American people will make war on you.
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
I think it's reasonable to expect that the American people will make war on you.
War...Its our greatest export. 
Go Browns!!![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/BrowniePoints/AndersonSnowPic.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445 |
Quote:
I kinda have to agree. If you make war on the American people, I think it's reasonable to expect that the American people will make war on you.
Goes for ANYONE...
And when u find them u have orders to Shoot to Kill...
Go Browns!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
we have executed from the air well over 1,500 suspected terrorists by Predators. President Barack Obama has ordered four times as many drone attacks in the past two years as former President George W. Bush did in eight. Are those killings more constitutionally suspect than Bush's treatment of the three terrorists at Guantanamo?
Last week, NATO warplanes deliberately targeted Moammar Gadhafi's family compound and residence in Tripoli, purportedly killing the dictator's youngest son, Saif.
Where are the war protestors again? I'm just sayin.....
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510 |
Umm ..... this was justified action, taken in a measured and sane manner ..... unlike the same actions taken by that &^$#%*() George W Bush ......  
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431 |
Quote:
War...Its our greatest export.
Well at least we haven't outsourced everything we were once great in making ...yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,206
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,206 |
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,111
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,111 |
C'mon dude, they are obviously lying in order to help out the Obama cover up. They don't even have the body! 
Crowded elevators smell different to short people...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
I know I had brought this point up in a post before sometime; but:
With regard to the drone kills---I don't like the idea of some 22 year old sitting in a control room in Texas acting as judge, jury, and executioner with a joystick. Not a big fan of that. IMO, that takes the act of killing out of the realm of necessity, and into a world of moral, ethical, and spiritual considerations.
It no longer can be defined as a kill or be killed interaction. It becomes a kind of crapshoot, where guilt is assumed and death is dealt--all while there is absolutely ZERO threat to the soldiers life.
I understand that you don't want America servicemen in harms way, but these operations open the door for serious questions regarding right and wrong.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
j/c http://www.youtube.com/v/Bz0MdTUfZkIPretty interesting. Could have been a shot in the dark or a guess, but it's kind of neat anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,870
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,870 |
Quote:
j/c
http://www.youtube.com/v/Bz0MdTUfZkI
Pretty interesting. Could have been a shot in the dark or a guess, but it's kind of neat anyway.
*WARNING This Contains Bill Mar*
You know my love will Not Fade Away.........
#gmSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
With regard to the drone kills---I don't like the idea of some 22 year old sitting in a control room in Texas acting as judge, jury, and executioner with a joystick. Not a big fan of that. IMO, that takes the act of killing out of the realm of necessity, and into a world of moral, ethical, and spiritual considerations.
ever read Ender's Game? Orson Scott Card deals with alot of the moral ramifications in this book.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,009
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,009 |
How about that helicopter part?
Shouldn't we be able to tell Pakistan to get that part and ship it back to us asap or no more money.
Joe Thomas #73
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I know I had brought this point up in a post before sometime; but:
With regard to the drone kills---I don't like the idea of some 22 year old sitting in a control room in Texas acting as judge, jury, and executioner with a joystick. Not a big fan of that. IMO, that takes the act of killing out of the realm of necessity, and into a world of moral, ethical, and spiritual considerations.
It no longer can be defined as a kill or be killed interaction. It becomes a kind of crapshoot, where guilt is assumed and death is dealt--all while there is absolutely ZERO threat to the soldiers life.
I understand that you don't want America servicemen in harms way, but these operations open the door for serious questions regarding right and wrong.
Is it different than dropping a bomb from 20,000 feet or firing a missile off a ship that is several miles out to sea?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
My understanding of warfare, and it's something I happen to agree with, is that we make it as safe for our guys and as unfair as possible for the other guys. When it comes down to it, right/wrong really doesn't matter. What matters is advancing American interests.
JMHO
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,206
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,206 |
Quote:
I know I had brought this point up in a post before sometime; but:
With regard to the drone kills---I don't like the idea of some 22 year old sitting in a control room in Texas acting as judge, jury, and executioner with a joystick. Not a big fan of that. IMO, that takes the act of killing out of the realm of necessity, and into a world of moral, ethical, and spiritual considerations.
It no longer can be defined as a kill or be killed interaction. It becomes a kind of crapshoot, where guilt is assumed and death is dealt--all while there is absolutely ZERO threat to the soldiers life.
I understand that you don't want America servicemen in harms way, but these operations open the door for serious questions regarding right and wrong.
I think that you might misunderstand the purpose of war.
It isn't some noble contest where two sides put men on a playing field and they defend themselves against each other.
It is about destroying your enemy, be it by wiping them out or by forcing them to surrender... but either way, the goal is to remove them from the playing field, and to do it while not losing any of your own. If that means that their men are exposed while ours are in air conditioned trailers or control centers, then so be it... ours are safe while they lose hundreds of theirs. Those are odds any General will take as attrition is on your side at that point. Heck, it's no different than putting our men in armored bunkers or tanks vs their foot soldiers doing a frontal assault..... it is simply an evolution of warfare.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
I agree with you. But what he's saying is that the more and more comfortable this killing becomes in terms of ease and lack of danger, the more and more apt they are to occur in the first place.
It sets a dangerous precedent.
Post WWII, we've begun a trend - and one could argue how much technology plays a part in this evolution/devolution - of starting wars, acting as the aggressors, the reasoning and aims behind them either suspect or unnecessary. We've gone from the notion of being the world's police/knight in shining armor, to the notion of being brutal thugs who enforce the interests of corporate elements.
Would that have happened if it was all rifles and live bodies?
The further technology develops, the worse it will get IMO.
Now, my opinion and explanation there is separate from Tyler's ... I'm not putting words in his mouth.
But I think a big part of his point is, the easier it is to press the button and not see what it does, the safer it becomes to wipe people out, the worse the decision making process we will tend to make.
It's not about how you kill your enemy ... it's whether or not they should be your enemy in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,206
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,206 |
Quote:
I agree with you. But what he's saying is that the more and more comfortable this killing becomes in terms of ease and lack of danger, the more and more apt they are to occur in the first place.
It sets a dangerous precedent.
Yes and no. The technology isn't unleashed at will. There are rule of engagement.
Quote:
Post WWII, we've begun a trend - and one could argue how much technology plays a part in this evolution/devolution - of starting wars, acting as the aggressors, the reasoning and aims behind them either suspect or unnecessary. We've gone from the notion of being the world's police/knight in shining armor, to the notion of being brutal thugs who enforce the interests of corporate elements.
Now, you've crossed into Whackoland and I'm not allowed in there any more, so I'll move along.
Quote:
It's not about how you kill your enemy ... it's whether or not they should be your enemy in the first place.
Purely perspective.
If you're the politician, that may hold true as long as you're able to make it so.
When you're the soldier and the order comes down, how to get it done is ALL it is about. Period.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Post WWII, we've begun a trend - and one could argue how much technology plays a part in this evolution/devolution - of starting wars, acting as the aggressors, the reasoning and aims behind them either suspect or unnecessary. We've gone from the notion of being the world's police/knight in shining armor, to the notion of being brutal thugs who enforce the interests of corporate elements.
Now, you've crossed into Whackoland and I'm not allowed in there any more, so I'll move along.
Yes, because it's entirely whacko to think that Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama, Libya, Beirut, Somalia, Lebanon, Yugoslavia, Haiti. etc., etc., etc., etc, etc. weren't anything but noble missions based solely on the security of the United States and the world, the absolute last gasp course of action available after all other means had failed.
Our military endeavors in recent history have been for the most part based on money. No money to be made or protected for corporate interests, no desolate base to turn into profits through government rebuild subsidies, no military action.
That's not whacko. It's, for the most part, entirely true.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,206
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,206 |
No, but it is entirely whacko to lump each and every one of those into some deluded theory that we're in them simply because we're "being brutal thugs who enforce the interests of corporate elements".
That's nothing but a disgusting over-generalization of epic proportions.
You can lump Iraq into that, almost certainly... but it'll be a hard sell, at best, to make a convincing case that each and every one of those fits that bill.
" Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama, Libya, Beirut, Somalia, Lebanon, Yugoslavia, Haiti" - not a damned one of these fit that bill.
And Haiti... seriously? We barely freaking showed up there and the ships went home... not to mention the time before that that ships were recalled before they even left port, hehe.
Grenada? Are you bleeping kidding me? Do you not recall the part where medical student were being held?
Lebanon - I think you covered that when you mentioned Beirut... which, by the way, happened to us, we didn't happen to it.
Yugoslavia/Bosnia - we were there with the U.N.
Ahh, forget it.. you're stuck in gov't/corporate/facism conspiracy land, I'm not going down this road with you.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Bin Laden killed (Part 2)
|
|
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
