Bin Laden dead!

adamoto wrote:

I will credit him for allowing our forces to put a bullet in his head instead of capturing him and holding him in a prison for two years or more and wasting a bunch of taxpayer dollars. Props to him for signing off on that.

Frankly, I'd prefer they got him alive.

I'm sure that, given his choice Bin Ladin much preferred a blast of 5.56 rounds that he thought was taking him to Paradise in the millisecond of consciousness he had left (if there is indeed a God, boy is he in for a surprise). I'm pretty sure ending up in the hands of the Infidels, in the US, sequestered away from his like minded maniacs is not the way he would have preferred ending up his days.

He probably had little useful intelligence at this point that the Coalition intelligence agencies didn't already have. But just producing him in person would shut up the conspiracy theorists around the world who have been claiming he has been dead for years and claims he was alive were merely a pretext for war. And prevent claims that he is actually still alive somewhere, hiding out with Elvis Presley or whatever. And a trial showing that justice can reach out and grab just about anybody wouldn't hurt at all.

Bin Ladin got the easy way out. I'd have happily kicked in more tax dollars to bring him in alive, try him, and then carry out the sentence.

Dancamp wrote:

I wonder if they reacted like that for the muslims that were in the towers on 9/11...

Of course not. These evil bastards have been calling for the deaths of other Muslims who don't share their view of Islam for several hundred years; no change there.

Those Muslims deserved to die from a Wahabbist standpoint. They didn't follow the fundamentalist view of Islam that the whackjobs follow, and thus they were infidels as well - and worse yet, backsliding Muslim infidels working and living among Christian and Jewish infidels. About as bad as it gets as they see the world.

These evil bastards have been slaughtering other Muslims since the turn of the 18th century, without remorse, and they have killed far more Muslims during that time with their attentions than they have Christians, Jews, and various other forms of unbelievers. It is just that their actions haven't touched us all that much until bin Ladin really threw gas on the flames. The Wahabbists had been pretty quiet since the Ottoman Empire last settled their hash, but the world has changed a lot in the interval as well. Many are arrogant when they hold the belief these people represent most Muslims (they don't, but there are enough fundamentalists out there to make them a real threat), and ignorant of the reality that Wahabbists have been at war with and killing other Muslims far longer than they have been doing the same to us.

All religions have their crazies and haters. At this point in history, Muslims just happen to be having their moment in the sun. When we were in Yugoslavia back in the 90's, it was Christians slaughtering Muslim Bozniaks. Didn't see any Christians in those concentration camps or in those mass graves we dug up. We kind of like to forget about that over here in the West... that was somehow or other different.

Talk to soldiers who served over in Yugoslavia back in the 90's and Afghanistan since 2001; a lot of us have a lot of time for Muslims in general and the way they view life and their relationship with others. We have "Christians" who show up at funerals to cheer a soldier's death and burn other peoples' holy books; Muslims have their fruitcakes as well. The tiny minority does not represent the whole.

It isn't about Islam versus Christianity. It's about the small core of vicious killers which use religion to justify their murderous hatred, regardless of what faith they claim justifies their actions.

SheWolf wrote:

[It isn't an assumption, people blatantly came out and said they'd never vote for a black man, and I know there are a lot more closet racists who've had the same words cross their lips but haven't said it publicly in fear of getting smacked with the racist flag.

So you just know in your bones that there's a lot more racists out there? And did you notice that what a white person will get "smacked with the racist flag" for, a black or Latino can say with impunity? Listen to Farrakan, Wright, or Sharpton lately?

Now these racists you know about - would this be the black racists who would always vote for a black candidate instead of a white candidate, simply because he's black? Did you miss all of that in the runup to the last presidential election? Or shall we not talk about that?

I think a pretty good argument can be made that Obama got a lot more votes simply because he was black than he lost simply because he was black. When did you ever hear a white preacher telling their congregation they had to vote for the white guy instead of the black guy? But that went on quite openly with some of the better known black "men of God" out there.

Yes, there are racists out there - of all racial origins, not just white like many would prefer we restricted the conversation to. Does that mean most people are racists, whether they're black or white? I don't believe that. And I do believe that the racists out there who will mark their vote according to skin color at the very least cancel each other out and probably ultimately come down in favour of Obama.

Quote :

His popularity will increase because he is the leader in the country, of whom the military follows orders, and under his orders snuffed out that twat. People who may not have voted for him are singing his praises, regardless. You hear about it all over the news.

This would be the media that has members saying they feel a thrill go up their leg every time he speaks? The media that was all over Bush whenever he took time off, but have little to say about a President who has taken more time off in the first two years to golf and play basketball than Bush did in both terms in office? The media who had a field day with Palin saying she could see Russia from her house, but didn't have a thing to say when Obama said he had visited 57 states so far and still had a couple to go?

As we saw in the midterms, the free ride the media has mostly given Obama doesn't translate into what the public thinks. Incidentally, how the hell could those midterms have turned out as they did without the votes of the colored portion of the US? Obviously, they're not buying The Anointed One's snake oil when it comes time to marking their ballot.

Quote :

Obama may have inherited the troops, but those troops never snuffed that rat out while under Bush's admin, and they could have.

As a soldier I have to say your confidence in our ability to take out anyone we want, no matter how well he hides, at any time, is touching. I guess that leaves me wondering, if we can indeed do it anytime we want, why Obama lounged around letting that dirtbag breath air for another two years. Seems to me he would have timed bin Ladin's demise just prior to the midterm elections so he could have minimized the disaster that was for his party and for his agenda.

Quote :

Had that happened when Bush was in power you can be sure the outcome of his presidency would have been much different.

The media would have developed a love affair for Bush if bin Ladin had been killed while he was in office? Don't think so. They would have started saying "well yeah, it was Barney Frank who called the shots at Fanny and Freddy, with Pelosi's support, and true enough, Bush did repeatedly ask them to stop the high risk loans and get some proper regulation in place.", instead of blaming it on Bush?

You might think that well of them, but I don't.

Quote :

Sure it has a lot to do with how people judge his presidency, not all of it. It isn't a well kept secret that there are a lot of ppl in the US who don't like him because he's black.

And of course, it is a very well kept secret that many people in the US voted for him precisely because he was black. Most of us didn't even notice all the public figures openly calling for colored people to vote for Obama because "he's one of us".

You REALLY don't want to go there, on this or the racism beliefs.

Quote :

Which is why Bush never did much in the way of thinking when it came to speeches, all of it was made up for him (well, with the exception of the obvious ones where he just stood there with that dumb look on his face and answered questions with things that weren't even relevant to the question, or he just made absolutely nos sense whatsoever).

Yeah, Bush... what a moron. Didn't use a teleprompter as a crutch, scripted questions for the press pool, and refuse to say much of anything when caught without one. Dumb bastard wasn't even smart enough to babble along for ten or fifteen minutes in response to an uncomfortable question (I timed Obama at 17 minutes once, on a bet), and in the end not answer it at all. Bush just answered the question, for better or worse.

Quote :

Obama's a thinker, and if Bush put half as much thought into his work like Obama has, I'm sure he could have had those seals go in and do what they did yesterday when he was still in the hot seat.

Which leads us back to why Obama let bin Ladin live for as long as he did after he took office, when apparently he could have had the SEAL team do it at any time. I really do appreciate your belief that the military has God like abilities to make things like this happen whenever we want, however.

Quote :

No, but in the end, the acts are the last call of the president. He's the guy who says yes or no. Even a grade 3 student knows not to go throw a trllion dollars on a pointless war in Iraq which had nothing to do with the 911 incident.

Unlike Libya, you mean?

So when the Chief Inspector, Hans Blix, addressed the UN just days before the US decided to take Iraq out to say that he wasn't getting any cooperation from Iraq and their were missing and outstanding NBCW weapons, Bush - the guy at the top of the responsibility chain for protecting America - should have just decided to ignore that?

After you've read what Blix presented to the UN just days before the US government (not George Bush all by himself) decided to take Iraq out, how would you have interpreted what Blix was saying after just losing 3000 of your citizens?

When British intelligence at the same time was saying their information was that Iraq could deliver NBCW weapons on 45 minutes notice, Bush should have ignored that? All of this immediately after terrorist attacks on the US homeland had left 3000 American civilians dead while he was in office?

BTW, speaking of the dummies who supported going into Iraq, I wonder if it is worth pointing out how many senior Democrats read exactly the same assessments and reports that Bush and Tony Blair did, and supported that decision to go into Iraq? Among them, Hillary Clinton, who The Smartest Guy In The Room has decided is bright enough to be the US Secretary of State. So... Bush is a dummy but Clinton who agreed with him is bright?

There's a long list of Democrats who not only agreed with Bush and supported that decision, but some who criticized him for not going into Iraq fast enough - namely, Al Gore (although I would hesitate to name The Guy Who Invented The Internet in any discussion of intelligence).

And yet, Iraq is magically just about Bush.

Seeing as you're about to compare Bush to Clinton, you do know that Clinton is the one who passed into law the Iraq Liberation Act, stating it was the policy of the US to change the regime in Iraq, right?

You might be interested in this little quote from Bill Clinton, from a speech a few years before Bush invaded Iraq, defending this Act and the policy it enabled:
Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits....

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons....

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.

I guess that makes two Clintons who were just as dumb as Bush in deciding that Iraq posed a real threat to the US. Or maybe dumb ol' Georgie, too stupid to think for himself, merely followed the lead of his smart predecessor and his wife The Woman Who Would Be President.

Quote :

Clinton left the budget with a 4.5 million surplus. In 3 years that surplus went into a 14.7 trillion deficit under Bush's control. I guess Clinton and Bush had no balls like Obama does, but al least Clinton didn't leave the country in a shambles with the major deficit catastrophe.

Another person who thinks people Democrats like Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi and what they had to do with Freddy and Fanny had nothing to do with what happened to the economy.

Ummm, gross federal debt increased under Clinton so let's not cheer too hard, but let's talk about that surplus.

First question: who controlled Congress and thus spending to ensure Clinton was fiscally responsible after his initial years?

The correct answer is: a Republican controlled Congress, which took control of both the House and Senate during the midterms in his first term in office, and after his failed bid at the Clinton version of Obamacare. So do you want to give credit to Clinton for that surplus or the Republicans who controlled passage of budget measures?

So let's see... when Clinton leaves a surplus with Republicans controlling Congress and voting on budget matters, he's a great president. When Bush leaves a deficit with Democrats controlling Congress and voting on budget matters, he's a failed president.

Ummmm.... okay.

By the way, speaking of Clinton, you did notice he failed three times to take out Obama: in 1996, 1998, and 2000, right? The 1993 first World Trade Center bombing took place shortly after Clinton took office - what did he do about it during his two terms, seeing as how we're criticizing Bush (who inherited HIS terrorism problems from Clinton, if we're going to be consistent here)?

Now, if Bush really could have taken out bin Ladin if he wanted to, it seems fair to ask not only why Obama didn't take bin Ladin out until nearly two years after becoming Command in Chief, but why Clinton didn't bother to do so during his presidency? Obama and Clinton are off the hook, but Bush was a dummy? Funny how that works along party lines.

Seeing as you find Bush's spending so outrageous (and I do) and the resulting debt, would you care to compare Bush's spending and debt over his entire presidency to what The Anointed One has run up in just his first two years in office?

No, I thought not. It ain't pretty, is it? Particularly when you're a taxpayer in the US.