But it will CERTAINLY help him, of that I have no doubt. The economy is on peoples minds way more than this. If that improves and the deficit drops some, he's golden then.

GMTom wrote:These guys are just trolling, they don't even believe the stuff they post.

I can assure you that I believe everything I've written in this thread. I don't see what reason you have to believe that I don't considering that they line up exactly with the views I've espoused on this board for years.

Odds are that the individuals who lost their loved ones voted in favor of this action by electing Mr. Obama.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they would have preferred to instead bring him to trial. Maybe they would rather have followed my suggestion (end the US empire and leave the middle east to it's own devices. However, they were never asked which they preferred. Their money was taken from them and used to assassinate someone.

Certainly, Americans as a whole voted for the course of action. Whether you agree with the policy or not, isn't this what we chose to do?

Bolded for emphasis.

In what way did "Americans as a whole" vote for this? Who is the "we" that chose to do this? I didn't choose this.

Do you have actual figures on this? I'm not disputing your claim, but I am curious to see where you are drawing your conclusions from.

The claim was based solely on the catastophies that the US government has caused around the world. Off the top of my head, I can think of a handful of Federal mass killings of innocent people that exceed 9/11's death total.

Native American genocide
Civil war
Phillipines occupation
Strategic bombing of germany in WWII
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Korean War
Vietnam
invasion of panama (sources other than US ones claim above or below 3000 civilian deaths.)
Kosovo war
Afghanistan war
Iraq war

Keep in mind these are only off the top of my head. I'm sure if we really looked we could find plenty more.

The conclusion that the feds have killed far more innocent people than Al Queda seemed so obvious that I didn't do any research as to how many innocent deaths can be attributed to Al Queda. I did a quick search and the consensus seemed to be about 5000 in various terrorist attacks (and of course over 3000 of them were on 9-11). These however were not authoritative sources so I'd be open to being proved wrong on that number....but frankly I'd be shocked to see it be much higher than that. Other than 9-11, even the most horrific terrorist attacks have death totals in the hundreds.

Ah, moral equivalency. Lovely. If the US is so bad, and Al Qaeda less bad, how come you still love in the USA, Vince? You some kind of martyr?

The USA (the name of the place I live) did not kill those people. I have no problem with the land. I love San Diego. That's why I live here.

I thought you lived in the Kingdom of Vicentia or some such thing. Of course, who would not be attracted to living in San Diego (including my old stomping grounds in OB).

theodorelogan wrote:The conclusion that the feds have killed far more innocent people than Al Queda seemed so obvious that I didn't do any research as to how many innocent deaths can be attributed to Al Queda. I did a quick search and the consensus seemed to be about 5000 in various terrorist attacks (and of course over 3000 of them were on 9-11). These however were not authoritative sources so I'd be open to being proved wrong on that number....but frankly I'd be shocked to see it be much higher than that. Other than 9-11, even the most horrific terrorist attacks have death totals in the hundreds.

I apologize. I assumed you were comparing apples to apples, and not using the entire history of the US Government. Al Qaeda was formed in what, 1988? It's first terrorist attack was in 1992. Yet you seem content to compare a small terrorist group that has been around for about 20 years to an entire government that was formed over 200 years ago. I suppose you are technically correct, though I feel pretty confident in saying that the comparison isn't equal by any stretch. Not only is the length of time involved weighed heavily against the US government, but Al Qaeda is only one of many terrorist organizations. To compare the two is pretty silly. Incidentally, while Al Qeada's numbers may not be all that high, it is known that they had hoped to kill 250,000 in the Trade Center Bombing. The fact that they only killed 6 was a fault of poor execution, and shouldn't weigh in their favor. Of course, this doesn't excuse the US Government for any wrong-doing on their part. However, to say that they are far worse because they had a 200 year head-start and multiple wars is pretty silly.

danivon wrote:Ah, moral equivalency. Lovely. If the US is so bad, and Al Qaeda less bad, how come you still love in the USA, Vince?

You chanaling Steve's Col. Jessup routine for us? And let's not bring Theo's sexuality into this.

So Obama did not kill Osama either. (It was USA Seal team 6)
Lincoln did not kill people from another country. (It was the USA Army)
Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon did not kill Viet. (Hint: It was the USA Military)

So much for personal responsibility, eh Vince? If you blame the President for the actions of the country, then why can't the blame can be sent down to the military member? Why did you say the USA did not kill these people?

I don't think this is right. Vince is off base on this one.

Vince, could you clarify something here. Are you trying to say that you regard any act of war as being morally equivalent to an act of terrorism ? It sure seems that way considering the fact that you included the bombing of Nazi Germany and the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in your list. I can understand why you might make that argument, but the fact is that in both these cases a plausible case can be made that they actually saved more lives than they cost by hastening the end to WWII. The only real counter arguments you could make are either that the war would have ended just as quickly without those actions (which is highly doubtful) or that we never should have been in the war in the first place so it's irrelevant. But the latter argument is essentially to say that we should always bend the knee to tyranny. In any event, grey areas do exist in respect of pretty much every example you raised, which is hardly the case when you look at Bin Laden's actions.

Neal Anderth wrote:

danivon wrote:Ah, moral equivalency. Lovely. If the US is so bad, and Al Qaeda less bad, how come you still love in the USA, Vince?

You chanaling Steve's Col. Jessup routine for us?

Nature abhors a vacuum, right?

It was a typo, (live), but yeah, I was employing some rhetoric. Of course, Vince and Guapo and NA would never dream of doing so...

Vince - so as appalling as the US government is, you continue to live there. Looks like complicity to me. Tell me, do you contribute to the economy, or are you a parasite on it? Only if it's the latter at least you can claim to be hitting 'the man', whereas the former suggests that you are helping the regime. And everything you've said suggests that you would object to being called the latter.

Honestly, the mental gymnatics is astounding. I don't celebrate anyone's death, even that of OBL. I think a more appropriate response than 'USA! USA! USA!' would be grim satisfaction, but knee-jerk patriots are easily roused, huh?

On the other hand, using it as a launchpad to rail (again) against the Fed is no less knee-jerk.

There's so much that could be said about this, but some people can only see through a prism of US politics. The impact on Pakistan is probably more important.

Sendric,

I think it's perfectly valid, when comparing two organizations, to compare them across their entire history. Unless you're willing to say that any any terrorist group that comes up and kills a couple people is worse than Al Queda because "9-11 was before"

It's a little ridiculous to dismiss the Federal killings over the last 100 years. We can't compare apples to apples here, because the US governments atrocities have been going on for so long. But fine...look at just federal killings from the beginnings of Al Queda. The Feds have still killed far, far more innocent people. The fact that the US government has been doing it for longer is even more of an indictment against it. Al Queda's paltry 5000ish in 20 years is laughably small compared to the destruction the the US government has wrought over that time period.

Bbauska,

How many innocent people did OBL kill? However many it was (and I'd be willing to be it is zero), the deaths he personally had a hand in were not the reason he was wanted.

Yes, I hold the individuals who followed orders that led to the deaths of innocent people responsible as well, all the way down the chain of command down to the military member who killed the innocent people. But if the leaders don't deserve any culpability, why is OBL dead?

freeman2 wrote:I think the 2012 election is over before it has even begun. Say what you want, Obama deserves credit for getting accomplished what should have been the main goal from the beginning.

Papa Bush has a 90% approval rate in 1991 after the first Gulf War and lost the election one year later. It was about the economy, not so smarty.

Vince - so as appalling as the US government is, you continue to live there.

Still not sure what a group of people in Washington DC has to do with where I live. Again, you are conflating a piece of land with a group of people...they aren't the same thing at all.

Looks like complicity to me. Tell me, do you contribute to the economy, or are you a parasite on it? Only if it's the latter at least you can claim to be hitting 'the man', whereas the former suggests that you are helping the regime. And everything you've said suggests that you would object to being called the latter.

I'm not sure what you mean by "contributing" to the "economy". I provide tutoring services for kids. Not sure how that "helps the regime." any more than it helps society at large. If the sun helps the regime should we snuff that put too?

There are some mental gymnastics going on here, but mainly from the people who use the phrase USA to mean the land area, the people who live in that land area, and the people who call themselves the government of that land area. Those three concepts are not identical.

Incidentally, I don't hold people responsible who, out of fear for their livelihood or safety, pay taxes. While I would like it if people stopped sending the federal government money, taking a serious personal risk like that is a decision that each individual must make. You can't be held responsible for decisions you make under duress.

theodorelogan wrote:Sendric,

I think it's perfectly valid, when comparing two organizations, to compare them across their entire history. Unless you're willing to say that any any terrorist group that comes up and kills a couple people is worse than Al Queda because "9-11 was before"

It's a little ridiculous to dismiss the Federal killings over the last 100 years. We can't compare apples to apples here, because the US governments atrocities have been going on for so long. But fine...look at just federal killings from the beginnings of Al Queda. The Feds have still killed far, far more innocent people. The fact that the US government has been doing it for longer is even more of an indictment against it. Al Queda's paltry 5000ish in 20 years is laughably small compared to the destruction the the US government has wrought over that time period.

I wouldn't say any terrorist group is worse than Al-Qaeda. They are all on equal footing in my opinion. Frankly, I don't understand why the number of innocents killed even matters. Whether its 1 or 1 million, its just as despicable. But if we want to do that, ok, yes, 5000 is a paltry number, but are those 5000 innocent lives worth less than whatever number you want to blame on the Feds? What if it was 255,000 as it would have been had the WTC bombing gone off as planned? Why don't we include all the other terrorist groups too? Is there some reason why Al Qaeda stands alone? Terrorism is an evil (and largely cowardly) act. The number of innocent lives taken in these acts doesn't make them more or less evil.

theodorelogan wrote:Bbauska,

How many innocent people did OBL kill? However many it was (and I'd be willing to be it is zero), the deaths he personally had a hand in were not the reason he was wanted.

Yes, I hold the individuals who followed orders that led to the deaths of innocent people responsible as well, all the way down the chain of command down to the military member who killed the innocent people. But if the leaders don't deserve any culpability, why is OBL dead?

Now, Now Vince. Don't try to accuse me of using your logic. You blame Bush and Obama for doing the same thing (In your mind) that OBL did. I based my decisions on justice. OBL committed a crime, and accepted responsibility for said crime. The US exacted justice for said crime. Should the US have done nothing after the 9/11 attacks?

You have a view that you are not responsible for anything that happens in the US. Fine. Step aside and let those who are willing to stand up and act for justice. Is the USA perfect? No, I never said they were.

Which of these were not just?
Native American genocide
Civil war
Phillipines occupation
Strategic bombing of germany in WWII
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Korean War
Vietnam
invasion of panama (sources other than US ones claim above or below 3000 civilian deaths.)
Kosovo war
Afghanistan war
Iraq war

There are some that were not just (4 of them IMHO). and a couple more that I disagreed with.
Let's use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an example, since I think that is the most similar to the current terrorist actions.

An entity (Japan) uses military force to surprise attack US bases, and the bases of our allies. We fight for 4 years, and get to a position that we can end the war quickly using nuclear weapons.

Do you think we should:
A.) Drop the bombs?
B.) Drop leaflets and humanitarian aid?
C.) Invade Mainland Japan?
D.) Go home?

The justice in me says we should drop the bombs, save US soldiers lives, and finish the war quickly. After the capitulation of the Japanese give them all the aid that they need. That is justice, tempered with grace and mercy. It would be unjust to bomb the Japanese until they were completely dead. It would be just as wrong to not stand against the injustice of being attacked.

If the US attacked Afghanistan before Al Qaeda attacked the US that would have been unjust. When Afghanistan defended Al Qaeda, they accepted responsibility as well. The US should act with restraint, but exact justice for hostile acts against the US.