So we deliberately invade a foreign nation, violating their sovereignty,

[MadHound]

On a deliberate kill mission.

<http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/us-binladen-kill-idUSTRE7413H220110502>

All the while conducting three immoral, illegal wars that have killed thousands.

Ain't we the moral country:eyes:

And folks wonder why some of us can't get worked up for the two minute hate that has now gone into overtime.

[Luminous Animal]

1. K&R

[JI7]

2. what are the 3 immoral illegal wars ?

[MadHound]

5. Oh, you know them as well as I do

Iraq, Afghanistan(which has now bled over into Pakistan) and Libya.

[JI7]

9. what is your opinion of the Afghans who want us to stay there ?

[MadHound]

20. What is your opinion of the simple fact that most Afghan citizens want us to leave?

<http://www.rediff.com/news/report/most-afghans-want-us-troops-out-by-next-summer-report/20101207.htm>

[JI7]

23. i can understand their reasons for wanting soldiers to leave

[MadHound]

24. So why don't we?

Especially now that we've officially killed bin Laden. What are we there for? Al Qaeda is gone, bin Laden is gone, so what is the point of staying?

[JI7]

34. our reasons for being in Afghanistan hasn't been about getting Bin Laden for years now

[MadHound]

40. So then why are we there?

Oh, yeah, I forgot, that whole "carpet of gold or carpet of bombs" thing. One more for the empire, eh?

Time to bring the troops home, now.

[Hugabear]

140. I'm sure I could probably round up some Iraqis who want us to stay. Your point?

You can always round up some people who will back up your position.

[EFerrari]

10. It's more like four counting Yemen and that's not counting

our continued operations in Colombia, which is now #2 for internally displaced persons in the world.

[readmoreoften]

56. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. In case you've been recently lobotomized.

Or maybe it happened a long time ago. I can't really say, I don't know your medical history.

[Mz Pip]

3. Yeah we really suck.

We're the worst. :eyes:

[MadHound]

7. Given our track record over the past sixty odd year,

And the number of bodies we have left in our wake around the world, we're certainly not the best. What other country has systematically gone from one armed conflict to another, killing millions of innocents in the name of resources, profit and empire?

[Mz Pip]

11. And what other country

gives the amount we do in foreign aid? we have the Peace corp, we have the Red Cross and countless other organizations that work for the betterment of other countries.

we're not perfect, but we're a whole lot better that most.

[MadHound]

16. Ah, so you're positing that it's OK to kill millions because we've given an ever decreasing pittance

To countries who have, in many cases, suffered at the hands of our greed to begin with. Sorry, but that is rather twisted set of ethics there.

[Mz Pip]

115. Wow

Where did you get that from my post? Okay to kill millions? That's quite a leap and a damn absurd leap at that.

I've opposed pretty much all of our military actions from Vietnam to Afghanistan. I just don't happen to be getting myself all tied up in knots that we got bin Laden the way we did.

If that's twisted in your mind, so be it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Ah where to start?

No, we are not the largest donors per capita, that is a myth.

Second, the RED CROSS is not an American invention, but was created by one Jean Henry Dunnant and it is based in Switzerland. The AMERICAN Red Cross will not go anywhere without the COORDINATION from the ICRC, for starters. Hell the US was late to the party in forming a National Society compared to it's european cousins.

And stop with the American exceptionalism please.

[underseasurveyor]

31. Norway is one of the top on the FA giving list (if not THE top)

They were number one a couple years ago. The US is woefully toward the bottom on the list. Germany, Luxembourg, Australia, to name a few. and many more countries far exceed us in FA.

[readmoreoften]

60. Load of bullshit. We give less humanitarian aid than any other developed country. We give MILITARY

aid, not humanitarian aid. You go to former 3rd world countries and you know what you see? "Donated by the people of Denmark" "With Gratitude to the Nation of Sweden" "Thanks to the Netherlands" "Thanks to UNICEF". We give military aid. We give very little humanitarian aid in comparison to other nations. By the way, the International Red Cross is an INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION and founded in SWITZERLAND, not the US. The Peace Corp is a pittance of our budget and has a checkered history of its own.

You really need to check your facts.

[readmoreoften]

61. To reiterate: the Red Cross is not a US organization.

Just in case you don't read my post. If you need to know one thing, you should know that at least.

[Art_from_Ark]

108. The International Red Cross may not be an American organization

but their main work today, natural disaster relief, is the result of the efforts of Clara Barton to get the Europeans to accept the "American Amendment" in 1884.

[Golden Raisin]

73. Frankly, I'd rather see

that money feeding hungry, homeless children here at home, repairing our collapsing infrastructure, creating & salvaging American jobs instead of shipping them overseas, educating our citizens, many of whom couldn't identify Iraq, Afghanistan or Missouri on a map, if their life depended on it.

[WinkyDink]

80. The Red Cross? Just where do you think the RED CROSS SYMBOL originated?

Clue: Not in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Let me list them

should I start with Imperial Athens?

Perhaps Rome is more to your liking? I mean the circus had some Je ne se qua after all.

Oh wait, how abou the Barbarian hordes from the East? No, not the ones that ended Rome, but the ones under one Genghis Khan? They did destroy the promise of Kievan Democracy. She died young.

Then there are the crusades... the Spanish and Portuguese Empires.

The first and second British Empires...

I should probably skip the First russian empire under Peter the Great and Katherine... or for that matter Stalin's 70 year old dream of Empire.

And these are just from the tip of my togue, I am missing a whole slew of OTHER empires to the East and a few in the West, like Leopold;s dream in Africa.

As to this... well, actually... perhaps there was some justification, a al Entebbe...

The funeral Oration by Themystocles is really a good read... given where we are right now though... let's just say that is quite apropos.

I don't get excited or scream USA though. But to ask that question, is to affirm that american excpetionalism. We are not any different from any other empire in history. And... we are still in decline. The killing of this one man does not trend-lines change.

[MadHound]

33. And those empires have done this in the past sixty odd years, no

Nor did any of those empires leave millions of bodies of dead innocents in their wake. Modern warfare means that we're able to kill with terrible efficiency. Stalin, the only one among those who has come close to our body count, at least had the decency to only kill those under his direct control, as terrible as that was. We invade countries and kill their people instead. Or sell military aid to countries and let them kill each other.

At least those other empires made no bones about what they were. Yet we try to pretend that we are somehow noble and ethical, the light of the free world. It is the hypocrisy that is sometimes the most stunning.

Nor does comparison with other empires, saying that we're simply following their path, offer any moral justification for what we have done and are currently doing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Russia under stalin had, conservative numbers

100 million in it's wake.

We are acting like any other empire

Oh and the proportions in population were similar Rome was DANG efficient, for example, but we did not reach 1 billion until the beginning of LAST century.

We are doing what every other empire does. We are not exceptional... and in that we are also doing what any other empire does.

Oh and Spain, conservative figures are close to 10 million dead in the New World in the first fifty years of empire, in North America alone.

We are doing what every other empire does, and will not stop until we no longer are an Empire. You think the Chinese will behave better? I will not hold my breath. And they will speak about how exceptional they are as well.

Ah we will live the Chinese Curse. The Empire is DEAD... China is to superscede us as the largest economy by 2016... per IMF. GO CHINA! No Really, the are the NEXT EMPIRE. We are a has been. And then, and only then, might this provincial people wake up.

[underseasurveyor]

48. LOL I'm SO grateful you stayed

It boggles my mind how you know, remember and you recall so much. You have a gift I wish I had.
Cheers to you Nadin:toast:

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. It's the masters in history

That class in Russian history was amazing... especially one funny bit.

The exam question was... what was the role of Alexandr Kerensky during the Russian Civil War? (He was the commander of the white army. and died in exile in New York City in 1924)

So one of my class mates writes about the FICTIONAL Alexander Kerensky and his role in the Amaris Rebellion... my instructor gave me that test to read. After I was
done I was laughing hard. He got an A in Star League History... that student that is.Alas fictional history is not real history.. even if it borrows deeply from it.

In his honor I will bring Kerensky's bar to yet another fictional world, with the good ol' general on his white horse in an ancient photo.

Yes this is the REAL Kerensky



But on a serious note, people should read the Funeral Oration. All similarities these days I call historical echoes. We don't learn from history... at all.

[Fool Count]

70. This is not the real Kerensky. This is actually General

Kornilov who indeed commanded the White Army during the Russian Civil War. Real Kerensky was a civilian. He headed the Provisional Government of Russia
from July 21 to November 7, 1917 when he was deposed in a coup by the Bolsheviks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. He was a general too

and he died in exile...

Actually both men died in exile.

[Fool Count]

124. No, he was not. He was a lawyer and career politician

who never even served in the army. He did die in exile in 1970 though.

[OwnedByFerrets]

103. Your story about Kerensky makes me think of the way

Repugs have whitewashed the Raygun years and their goal to have at least ONE reference to their hero in EVERY county in America. Just to remind we lowly sheep of how magnificent he was.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. Oh the BattleTech Mythos borrows so much from

history that I am surprised they have not brought in Reagan back in any way... the Carrier Reagan... could be a good one.

That is a blatant place where you can see history ahem borrowed deeply.

The Clans... look at Afghanistan and the tribal structure, with a little of Genghis Khan...sprinkled for good measure.

The Davion Marches are nothing more than the borderer marches of the ENgland of the 16th century. I could go on.

[originalpckelly]

139. And what other empire in the history of the world used nukes?

Aside from the Russian Federation, what other nation has the power to destroy the entire world?

I think you can fuck off.

[hfojvt]

17. ASU! ASU! ASU!

We violated their sovereignty. Oh, the horror, the horror.

Won't join in the two minutes of hate for Osama, but quite willing to do two minutes of hate for the US of A.

[MadHound]

22. Yeah, darn those pesky laws, both national and international

We should simply be able to violate them at will, right?:eyes:

How dare somebody demand that we live up to the ethical principles that we're supposed to live by.

[hfojvt]

41. ah yes, the high moral ground

it's always about principle. The key principle being apparently that the USA is evil.

Because there is no difference between illegally breaking into a house to rob and murder and breaking into a house to capture a serial killer. They both are equally against the law. :eyes: Why, Osama, unlike the people who died on 911, didn't even get a fair trial!!!1!! We didn't even follow the rules in order to catch him!!!1!!! Oh, the injustice of it all. How evil can our country get? :cry: :cry: :cry: We were supposed to say olly olly oxenfree and click our heels three times before we invaded his compound.

[MadHound]

44. No, the key principle is following the rule of law,

And violating that law, simply to kill a criminal who violated it only leads to chaos and destruction.

Wait, we're already there, never mind.

[sabrina 1]

136. Murder victims don't get fair trials but we do give the accused

murderers fair trials. Why do you believe that our system of justice should be so disposable? I know that is what has happened after eight, long, violent, criminal years of the Bush administration, but we opposed every attempt they made to destroy our system of justice. We didn't succeed so we did the next best thing, we threw out the entire Republican Party.
y
People have died defending the US Constitution, they do not fight to defend politicians, the FFs were smarter than that. They made the Constitution the representation of what America is . Yet, so many Americans are so dismissive of what truly IS this country, what makes it what it is.

Presidents and other elected officials are CITIZENS hired by the people to preserve and protect the very same Consitution also. That is all they are, they can be replaced but if we lose the very foundation of the country, it might never be retrievable, at least for a very long time. The military, elected officials, their oaths are NOT about defending the government, but the Constitution.

It's really disturbing how little Americans realize just how important the Law of the Land, the Constitution is if this country is to survive at all. And it has been seriously attacked over the past decade. Without the Constitution, the Rule of Law, there IS no America.

And that is why the FFs were seriously worried about political parties, that they could destroy the idea of a true democracy. People get too attached to politicians and political parties, at the expense of the country.

[WinkyDink]

82. Name another country that has used WMD on civilians.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

8. No, whining doesn't do shit, you're right,

Which is why I actually am involved with my local peace group, and other causes, for the past few decades. It is a hell of lot better to try and change things than simply cheerleading on the sidelines simply because the latest leader of our bloody rampage has a D behind his name.

[U4ikLefty]

32. I believe the words you were looking for are "love it or leave it"

stay classy

[WinkyDink]

83. Is that the new "America: Love It or Leave It"?

[Ignis]

129. Well, John Birch is obviously a liberal icon, right?

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

6. But releasing the *photographs* isn't who we are.

[MadHound]

15. Mass killing good, offending supposedly delicate sensibilities, apparently not so much

The act itself is fine, the image, not so much.

The powers that be learned a lot about the power of images from Vietnam. Apparently we're not going to be allowed to view the results of our bloody work ever again. Embedded journalists, unreleased photos, nope, the message put out to our own populace is to be strictly controlled.

[EFerrari]

25. It's crucial to keeping the bubble intact

and of course, why Wikileaks has been so persecuted.

[readmoreoften]

62. No we're a bunch of puppy-loving, angel-kissed philanthropists

living in a terrible world full of mean brown people who all hate us for some unfathomable reason. Oh, right yeah, for our "freedoms." Forgot.

[coalition_unwilling]

12. To all on DU who have been scrambling to white wash this extra-judicial

execution, I have been offering the following Modest Proposal:

Be it resolved henceforth that anyone accused of a capital crime shall enjoy no right to trial but, upon the simple affirmation of the monarch, be put to death immediately, in the interests of saving money, efficiency, making people feel better, indulging people's blood lust, or simply because we can.

[bluestateguy]

13. I'm sure that argument will sell real well in a coffee shop in Middle America

nt

[MadHound]

18. Actually, it has been already discussed and well received in a coffee shop in Middle America

Any other questions?

[tkmorris]

47. Who gives a flying fuck if it sells?

Do you have morals, or do you do what the polling of Middle America coffee shops desires?

I happen to believe in what is right and wrong, as taught to me as a wee lad, and I don't give a FIG what some asshole in a coffee shop in middle america thinks.

Maybe that's just me. Hell, I KNOW it's just me, and a few others. I've been reading DU these past few days. An awful lot of you people are Freepers who happen to wave a slightly different flag. I am feeling more beat down now than I EVER did under the Bush admin. We are supposed to be better. The vast majority of us aren't.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

21. Better than the twisted ethical knots I see a lot of people trying to get into is. n/t

[leftstreet]

19. Will this patriotic fervor on the 'left' make it hard to bring troops home?

Hmm

[Luminous Animal]

35. Avid support for a new war (Libya) and a national hard-on for extra-judicial murder -

even for U.S. citizens... we're in this for decades or more.

We are an extra-ordinary violent nation, at home and abroad.

[coalition_unwilling]

133. "Violence is as American as cherry pie" - H. Rap Brown. - n/t

[joshcryer]

28. What "violation of sovereignty"? We had this thing called "permission."

Golly people on DU seem to think sovereignty is so fucking sacred.

[MadHound]

36. And when did we get permission to invade Pakistan?

Either before this bin Laden mission, or for this bin Laden mission? I would be interested in seeing that permission, especially since we don't have it, and the leader of Pakistan is calling this raid a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty, and rightly so.

[joshcryer]

58. Wikileaks is a clue:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/229065

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/193196

Publicly, Pakistan has to feign anger over it, privately, they have agreements about these raids.

[Luminous Animal]

67. It's a good thing that Pakistani citizens live in a Democracy so they can vote out the leaders who

have betrayed them and left them at the mercy of drone attacks



Oops.

[Ignis]

130. ^^^ This.

[MadHound]

87. Permission for one, or even a few missions is not the same thing

As permission to run ongoing drone attacks on the populace, have ground troops deployed in country, etc.

And nowhere in there is permission to roll in and kill bin Laden.

[PVnRT]

84. Right. We just snuck in with two helicopters and a few dozen troops

and no one in Pakistan had a clue? Think about it for a minute. Of course they knew, or at least enough people knew to ensure our troops would not be interfered with.

[MadHound]

88. Somehow I doubt it,

This administration has stated that it didn't want to alert hostile elements in the Pakistani government, and I believe them on this.

As far as the physical act of getting the troops in without detection, given our level of technology, it isn't hard.

[PVnRT]

109. Helicopters are noisy and show up on radar

Pakistan's West Point was a short distance away. Not to mention that they had to fly over a hostile border, which would be watched.

Some people in the Pakistani military had to know; probably some trustworthy CIA assets or others opposed to the Taliban and their allies in the ISI.

[MadHound]

112. ISI is probably the last people they would tell,

And it is doubtful they would tell anybody in the government, much less ask for permission, given Pakistan's relation with the Taliban, al Qaeda and bin Laden(as you state, he was parked next door to a Pakistani military training facility.

Yes, most helicopters are noisy, and they can show up on radar. But modern helicopter technology has, like fixed wing technology, improved greatly. They have stealth 'copters, much like stealth planes, and rotor noise has been reduced considerably. Also, there is much speculation, based on the wreckage left behind, that at least the copter that was blown up at the bin Laden compound, and thus assuming the others, were advanced stealth design helicopters not seen before.

Furthermore, you've got to remember that much of Pakistan isn't populated. The flights were low to the ground, avoiding radar. And a typical person, hearing a copter going overhead in the middle of the night is going to do what? Probably turn over and go back to sleep, copters are that common, even in Pakistan.

It is entirely conceivable, and even quite likely, that nobody noticed those copters, and that the raid was carried out without permission or knowledge of the Pakistani government and military.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. Yes.

I remember watching people jump from a burning skyscraper holding hands because they had no choice.

Sorry, fuck that guy. He declared war, and not only war, but a war that existed outside of any recognized 'international legal' structure, whatsoever. You would have preferred... what? A capture? A trial? A long, drawn out extradition via the Pakistani government? Are you fucking serious?

Maybe we should have done nothing, huh?

Yes, we did those things you say. Finally, after 10 years, we got the guy who DID attack us. Finally. Now, maybe, we can start dealing with some of the long-overdue stuff we stopped dealing with when our eyes were frozen in horror at the sight of those towers coming down. Finally.

So please, save the fucking lectures.

[joshcryer]

30. It's simple, really. An unlawful killing would be impossible to prove.

Therefore those who are arguing that the killing was unlawful (murder) are merely posturing. It will never be proven, they will never be able to prove it, and therefore, it is just a fucking waste of time.

[coalition_unwilling]

134. "Merely posturing" - I'll bet had you been alive in the 50s, you would

have said the same thing about Martin Luther King Jr and the lunch counter sit-ins.

Welcome to my Ignore list.

[MadHound]

38. Ah, so it's OK to become what we hate in order to "get" somebody?

If so, then we've gone a long way down a dark ethical road. Of course, seeing the state that this country is currently in, what we are, what we're doing, I think that's pretty obvious.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. No, doing this is not 'becoming what we hate'. Not even close.

What we are? What we're doing?

...Okay, what are 'we' doing?

You're hand-wringing over Osama Bin Laden's death, that's what you're doing.
I'm going to bed, that's what I'm doing.

[MadHound]

53. What we're doing is violating the sovereignty of a nation,

In order to carry out an extra-legal execution of a man.

Would it be OK for the Iraqi's to send over a special forces squad to do a hit on those two war criminals Bush and Cheney?

[BzaDem]

64. Let's say we violated their sovereignty. So what?

If a nation is going to harbor terrorists (either explicitly or implicitly by having an intelligence service that would alert the terrorist given any information), shouldn't they expect their sovereignty to be violated? Why do you assume the violation of their sovereignty is self-evidently a bad thing?

Oh wait, that's right, my guess is you probably don't even think Bin Laden is behind 9/11, but rather Bush and Cheney were. :crazy:

[Luminous Animal]

68. The FBI does not even assert that bin Laden is behind 9/11. They've publically admitted that

the evidence is insufficient.

[BzaDem]

69. Do you post this junk in GD subthreads because it would go to the dungeon if you posted it in an OP?

[Luminous Animal]

72. Nah. I post it to rile you up.

Of course, you cannot give any evidence to the contrary but your umbrage is noted.

[BzaDem]

76. I will also not debate bithers on the merits of long form birth certificates

but that does not mean Obama was not born in the US.

[MadHound]

89. Speaking of Bush/Cheney,

Would you support the actions of an Iraqi team who swept in in the middle of the night, killed them and took off?

After all, given the Bush/Cheney record, especially in regards to Iraq, they are war criminals and terrorists.

[BzaDem]

126. The question isn't whether you think they are war criminals.

The question is whether they ARE declared combatants, not whether YOU THINK they are declared combatants. Taking what you think and putting it to one side, they are not declared combatants against any country. Bin Laden most certainly is a self-declared combatant against the United States (again, the truther garbage notwithstanding). You keep trying to create equivalencies when there aren't any.

[OwnedByFerrets]

105. However, if China sends missiles and troops into America

violating OUR sovereignty because we are harboring someone THEY deem a terrorist, I have a distinct feeling you would not like that at all ,would you? The only thing WE are exceptional at anymore is making up the rules as we go to fit OUR agenda.

[BzaDem]

127. We aren't going after Bin Laden because we "deem him" a terrorist -- we are going after him because

he IS a terrorist, and more importantly a self-declared combatant against the United States.

You can continue to try to pretend otherwise (or that there is some equivalency between whatever hypothetical you dream up and what actually happened), but that would just mean that you are wrong (not that there actually is some equivalency).

[OwnedByFerrets]

137. You are the one pretending. My scenerio describes your thoughts perfectly

You just wont accept the truth.

[SDuderstadt]

91. Isn't DU's...

"justice for bin Laden" brigade a hoot?

[deacon]

39. We gave that country billions and he was hiding in plain sight. Screw them. If they did their job

we wouldn't have had to.

[MadHound]

43. Ah, so you would be OK with an elite Iraqi squad coming over here,

Killing Bush and Cheney for the war crimes they committed against the Iraqi people? After all, if Obama would do his job and bring them to justice. . .

[trud]

42. So we deliberately invade a foreign nation, violating their sovereignty,On a deliberate kill mission

Sounds good to me. Now it's time to say, not one more dime to Pakistan.

[MadHound]

49. So, you would be down with Iraqi's coming over here, on a deliberate kill mission,

In order to mete out justice to those two war criminals Bush and Cheney, who after all, killed millions of innocent Iraqi's?

[trud]

86. MadHound

Well, the thought doesn't upset me, no. Why should this be one-sided? Bush and Cheney killed millions of civilians, it's time for real accountability. Maybe then those of their ilk would think more about what they're doing than just feeding the coffers of the military-industrial establishment.

[MadHound]

90. And that way lies madness and anarchy

This time it is Iraqis killing Bush/Cheney, next time it is a Yemeni team coming in to kill Obama for his terrorist actions in that country. Back and forth it goes until there is no law, no order, and madness reigns. Sorry, but I don't want to live in that world.

[Liquorice]

45. Why are some people so upset that we killed this man? He was

a terrorist and a sworn enemy of all Americans and a mass murderer. Here is a quote from him right after the attacks on us on 9/11:

"The pieces of the bodies of infidels were flying like dust particles. If you would have seen it with your own eyes, you would have been very pleased, and your heart would have been filled with joy." Osama Bin Laden 9/16/2001

And do you think he wouldn't have done it again?? If given the chance to murder more Americans, he most certainly would have done it, with great joy.

"In today's wars, there are no morals. We believe the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets." Osama Bin Laden 9/16/2001


How could you ever think it's wrong that America killed this horrible man?

[MadHound]

51. It is the juxtaposition, the moral hypocrisy that galls me.

A nation that is supposed to be so moral, so ethical, time and time again betrays those very values, and then tries to cover up those actions.

Do you want to know something, we could have prevented this all, long ago. The bombing of the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, 911, these wars all of it could have been prevented. We aided the mujahideen, the proto-al Qaeda, in their war with the Soviet Union. With our help, they won, but their country was absolutely destroyed, and the Afghan people were starving. They wanted, needed, begged for help from the US in order to rebuild. A few million dollars would have meant so much, would have done so much for them. But first Reagan, then Bush, then Clinton turned their backs on them, and the mujahideen's gratitude turned to rage. So here we are, twenty years later.

It is the moral hypocrisy that gets me.

[Liquorice]

63. He declared war on our country and our people. It's not immoral

to kill him given those facts. He is no different than any other leader who has ever declared war on us. Would it have been immoral to kill Hitler? Of course not. OBL was a man without a country, but he was the leader of a powerful terrorist group and with that power behind him he had declared war not only in words but also in deed. Are you arguing that he was justified in declaring war on Americans and attacking us because of our government's actions? I hope not.

It can be argued that we could have prevented OBL from murdering innocent people by taking better actions, but a right-winger could also argue that Timothy McVeigh would have never murdered innocent people if only Janet Reno hadn't killed those people at Waco. And what about Eric Rudolph who murdered and maimed innocent people because of his strong opposition to abortion? It could be argued that Rudolph would have never become enraged if we had just outlawed abortion, so it's all the fault of America that he did it. Of course, these argument are insane. There's no justification for what they did, and there is no justification for what OBL did.

OBL had to be killed because he was at war with us and was set on murdering more of us. We were morally right to kill him. That doesn't mean, however, that everything America has done and is doing is morally right.

[Luminous Animal]

71. There is indeed a justifiable argument to be made as to why we are targets of terrorists.

BIG GIANT CAVEAT HERE! I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE TACTICS OF TERRORISTS. I AM A PACIFIST.

We've been meddling in their countries for decades. Aiding in undermining, removing or killing their Democratic leaders. Propping up dictators and enriching them while leaving their citizenry in abject poverty.

Outside of the ruling class, THEY HATE US. THEY HATE THE WEST. The west has, for near 100 years, actively destroyed any and every attempt at self rule. If any western leader was murdered in the manner that bin Laden was, there would be dancing in the streets.

What distinguishes Arab terrorists from the McVeigh's and Rudolph's is that they do not live in a Democratic society. They do not have the freedom and power of persuasion and the ballot box. They are at the mercy of their own repressive oligarchs and the western governments that support those oligarchs.

[elias49]

102. Exactly right - they don't hate us for our 'freedom',

they hate us for our efforts to deny them THEIRS.
We played OBL for years much liked we played Noriega, Marcos, Franco, Somoza, Suharto, Pinochet, Batista, Duvalier...
plenty more but I won't go on.
You use people and governments, sell them weapons then arm their enemies...after a while the shit hits the fan and someone comes back and bites us in the ass.
Then we go kill him.
Meh

[EFerrari]

52. Because the means matter as much as the ends. n/t

[Liquorice]

65. I have no problem with the means. He was our enemy, he murdered innocent

people, he wanted to murder more Americans, and we killed him before he could. What's the problem?

[BzaDem]

66. But why do you assume the means were somehow bad?

I could certainly conceive of bad means, but the means chosen here does not fit the category.

[Luminous Animal]

57. "In today's wars, there are no morals... We do not have to differentiate between military or

civilian."

It's as if he was writing a war manual for U.S. drone attacks.

[alcibiades_mystery]

98. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

The Emerson quote explains quite a lot of recent activity on the internets.

:rofl:

[GodlessBiker]

54. Countries aren't moral or immoral, just people are.

[MadHound]

55. Oh, but they like to claim they are moral,

And try to cover their nakedness with the clothing of righteousness.

[GodlessBiker]

59. You mean people try to claim that countries and other things are moral or immoral.

Bully for them. People claim lots of things.

It's lazy to say a "country" is immoral rather than have to identify the individuals within a country who commit immoral acts.

[DonCoquixote]

85. let me ask this

Should we have ignored ben ladin and let him be? He was not going to surrender.

[mmonk]

74. The holy scripture of manifest destiny.

[guruoo]

75. Maybe Fox news will have you on...

Sounds like yer just what they're looking for right now:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x580827

[lamp_shade]

77. Oh... it's YOU.

[mmonk]

78. I think the problem is we have justified illegal wars and invasion

based on actions of a terrorist organization or group. Thus, instead of police work, intelligence, and operation teams to extract or fight the guilty, we have used the precept to follow no rules and/or to treat all suspects the same without trials.

[Shandris]

79. Virtually every single post in this thread that is 'against' the killing of...

...OBL has, at its core, some appeal to morality in it. "But we think we're so moral", "but we drape ourselves in morality", "but the moral hypocrisy"...

Where?

Godless Biker is right -- a nation cannot protest its' morality or immorality as a whole. There can be trends within a nation, but trends are just aggregate samples of populational norms. America, to the extent that it is, as a trend, 'moral', is so becuase while it may not always succeed, the vast majority of the populace would prefer to see the most good done for the most people when they are aware of it. Now there are swaths of difference in that trend -- people who don't 'get' that social programs do the most good for the most people, for instance. There really are some people who fervently believe that social programs are a form of institutionalized slavery. It's inane in the light of any facts of course...but that doesn't make their belief any less real to them.

But as a trend, Americans do not like to see people suffer. We don't, as a trend, spend our time wishing some nation or group of nations was eliminated off the face of the planet. How could we -- we're often accused (and to a good degree, rightly so) that we don't even consider the rest of the world.

To the extent that we claim 'morality', its in that we will try to do what seems right. That our people are often misled by propaganda, a complicit media, and the foul depredations of those to whom money is the only thing is a tragedy of monumental proportions...but within what we 'know', the former statement is true.

Now let us consider OBL in this light. Here is a man whose network has attacked the US...Britain...Germany...and several other of our allied nations. Peoples and places that even the most deluded Americans at least have heard of. He wants to do more, he has said as much. We have been waging a war that, in most people's minds (if not entirely in reality), has been about 'getting him and his network'. Now we have him, and our 'ally' has been found to be betraying us by hiding him. If a person killed your wife, then went and hid at a friend's house and YOU KNEW IT, would you then accept the police telling you that they couldn't do anything because, well, the friend SAID he wasn't hiding there.

You need to lay off the 'evil' you think all Americans are perpetrating and gain some perspective on this topic, because not only do some of you sound positively unhinged, you're doing so with some of the most contorted logic ever to grace a webpage. Are we competing with FR for skewed views now?

[MadHound]

93. I've never posited that the American people as a whole are evil

However those who control the levers of power, those who make the big decisions are indeed evil. Their greed, their grasping for power has bathed the pages of our history in blood, leaving a trail of innocents in their from the moment that Columbus stepped foot in this country to now.

This sort of bloodletting does become our responsibility because, after all, we are a democracy, at least nominally. It is our responsibility to hold our leaders accountable. Unfortunately we rarely do, either because we enjoy the spoils, the benefits, or we are kept in the dark, or for whatever reason we actually approve of what is being done.

Americans, in general, can be some of the most gregarious, generous people on Earth. However our government and those who control the levers of power in this country are indeed some of the most greedy, evil people that we have seen.

One has but to look through the pages of our history to see this self evident truth.

It is far past time that we the people took back our country, took control of those levers of power, and wield them for the good of all of us, not just the wealthy and powerful.

[Shandris]

111. And here you'll find me in complete agreeance.

I was more taking issue to the broad-brush labelling of 'we Americans think we're so moral and wrap ourselves in our morality' than anything. You'll find no argument from me about our leaders -- they are easily counted among some of the most evil -- or deluded -- people the world has seen.

But bin Laden, and our hunt for him, has nothing to do with how misguided our leaders are; it has nothing to do with how misguided our PEOPLE are, through corporate media, nonstop bombardment of propaganda, and yes, even the group of those who are unabashedly evil or willfully, knowingly ignorant of the consequences of their actions. So yes, we definitely need to continue our non-stop work to bring a sense of enlightenment to our nation, and to the world at-large -- and also to learn from others, doing the same things, in other parts of the world. But we can only deal with any given situation with the tools we have available. We knew where bin Laden was. Our 'ally' was sheltering him -- from all indication, Osama was comfortable enough to have his entire family living there with him. He wasn't out in the field with his followers. He was simply directing them to do what he had trained them to do. And had we waited for 'sovereign power', he would have gotten his warning call and fled. Who has the power to overrule 'sovereign power'? The UN?

Is it reasonable to say that anyone, anywhere, can commit a crime so heinous that the repeating of that crime's occurance can become the basis for propaganda to alter the beliefs of an entire generation (referencing the poll on torture, for instance), yet have NOTHING to fear so long as they run to a country where the leaders will simply say 'Nah, he's not here'?

This is where ideology collides with reality, and one has to give. It would be PREFERABLE if we could simply ask and get a truthful answer, then arrest him under no duress, with no military involvement or law enforcement other than an arresting officer. But in the modern world, that isn't going to happen. So what we're left with is a selection of alternatives, none of which is necessarily a 'best' answer, let alone a 'moral' answer when said morality is viewed from a purely hypothetical, clinical point of determination.

And this, to me, is why the 'wrap ourselves in morality' argument holds absolutely no water ~in this context, in this case~.

[Mz Pip]

117. "This is where ideology collides with reality"

Well said. You are right. Sometimes there is no perfect answer or the best answer is not and never will be an option.

[slackmaster]

81. FUCK YEAH!

:nuke:

[Broderick]

92. Thanks Madhound

Interesting how you are consistent to principle regardless of who runs the show. I can't say that for many.

[VeryConfused]

95. That thinking in terms of complex grays instead of simplistic black and white

is a bad thing?:shrug:

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

97. Wow, you still know very little about me after all these years. First of all, I'm not a "she".

Second of all, I'm not mad, sad, or glad that Osama is dead.

Rather, I'm disappointed that our country has once again come to this, assassinating people we detest in the dead of night, while waging illegal, immoral wars around the globe. One would have hoped we had learned from our Vietnam debacle, and the dubious morality we showed there, but apparently not.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

101. Again, you ass u me,

You can't even get my gender correct, yet you ass u me that you know all about me, my motivations, etc.

You know what they say about those who ass u me.

[alcibiades_mystery]

113. Your

haterade track record turns out to be much more important than your gender.

cheers.

[Renew Deal]

114. I agree that it's embarrassing,

(sorry madhound) I'm glad that there hasn't been too much of it on DU. It makes us look bad.

[meow mix]

96. Fox News has a job opening for you.

sounds like your perfectly qualified

[MadHound]

99. Ah, can't debate the merits of my position, so you resort to pithy comments instead.

Let me ask you this, like I have asked so many others.

What would you think about a team of Iraqi special ops coming in the middle of the night to kill those war criminals Bush/Cheney, the ones who have killed millions of their fellow countrymen? Would you be down with that violation of our sovereignty? Would you think it just, moral, appropriate?

[meow mix]

106. well obviously they should be charged with war crimes!!!! and the leaders!

just like your hinting we do to the seals and obama, why dont you just come out and say it coward?

[MadHound]

107. Again, you are choosing insults over cognitive thought.

Try using your frontal lobe and actually answer the questions I pose, rather than questions that you make up in order to insultingly answer.

Here, I will state those questions again, just for clarity's sake:

"Would you be down with that violation of our sovereignty? Would you think it just, moral, appropriate?"

Please, answer those question, rather than posting insults and assuming that you know what I'm thinking. All you're doing is making yourself look foolish.

[elias49]

104. Kick

Thanks for some semblance of balance and sanity.

[Baclava]

110. Is this about Libya?

Oh wait ... nevermind.

[Yavin4]

116. I'm Glad That Osama Bin Laden Is Dead.

I'm glad that our Democratic President did it. I hope that this action leads to our withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't care about Pakistan's sovereignty since they've gotten $20 billion dollars from us for fighting terrorism, and agreed to let us into their country to pursue terrorists.

Almost every nation on this planet is immoral when it comes to unjust wars and killing. Do you want to review history?

[Zorra]

118. Consider the possibility that OBL committed suicide by Navy Seal.

The senior US official says there was no expectation that bin Laden would be taken alive.

As CIA director Leon Panetta explained to PBS yesterday, “the authority here was to kill bin Laden. And obviously under the rules of engagement, if he in fact had thrown up his hands and surrendered and didn’t appear to represent any kind of threat then they were to capture him. But they had full authority to kill him.

And they did. He was unarmed, but he resisted capture, his wife rushed a Navy SEAL, and there was no way the SEALs could have known in that split second whether bin Laden or the room was booby-trapped in any way.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/us-official-this-was-a-kill-mission.html

Do you really think OBL wanted to be taken alive, to be defiled, degraded, maybe tortured in prison while western MSM had a long term hatefest going until he was tried and executed?

Some authorities in Pakistan obviously knew where he was. They weren't telling. Indicating that they were not really interested in bringing OBL to justice. What is the alternative? The spooks knew where he was, knew Pakistan would tip him him off if told that the spooks had the info, and he would have escaped.

And what then? If he pulled off another mass murder of innocent people, how would the President feel if he did not seize the opportunity to possibly prevent another horror like 9/11? He'd probably be devastated, and he would irrevocably lose all respect from the intel community and the pentagon as well. Not good at all for a Commander in Chief.

I am not a big fan of the President. I think the 3 invasions and occupations are totally wrong, and that we should just GTFO of the regions once and forever.

But Pakistan wasn't ever gonna give OBL up, and OBL chose to be executed rather than submit to trial.

IMO, the President had no other option but to take the action that he took, other than letting bin Laden escape, which was out of the question.

I think he made the right choice under the circumstances.

[browntyphoon]

119. Things Pakistan should have considered when harboring Bin Laden.

[backscatter712]

122. Hey, we're giving Pakistan billions of dollars to let us whack Al Qaeda & Taliban on their turf.

Actually, we do have a working agreement with Pakistan that gives them money in exchange for allowing U.S. forces to operate to a limited extent in Pakistani territory, I believe the White House called it a "hot pursuit" agreement.

So it's not a total violation of sovereignty. The Pakistani government is going to play politics and act all butt-hurt, but they let us in.

[VeryConfused]

123. When did international law require that you wait for the other side to arm themselves

OBL declared war on the US. That makes him an enemy combatant and international law says you don't have to wait until the enemy soldier picks up his weapon or reloads before you shoot them.

[Mz Pip]

128. OBL died on the battlefield.

This was a battlefield that he created. It wasn't a house; it was a bunker.

If there are people who cannot see the difference between OBL and an alledged murderer holding up in an apartment in Cleveland then there isn't much more I can say.

OBL made the world his battlefield. Bodies from his offensives scatter the globe. He created the battlefield and he died on the battlefield. That's how it works when you declare war, not on a nation but because of some fundamentalist ideology. There are no borders as far as OBL was concerned.


So fuck him. I have no problem with how this went down.

[Ohio Joe]

125. Yes, we should have let him go free

:eyes:

[Lucinda]

131. I'm pretty sure they knew we were there

however i'm with you in spirit. SSDD.

[Initech]

132. Um... We had the full cooperation of the Pakistani government on our side.

[MadHound]

135. Umm, no, we actually didn't,

And the Pakistani government is rather pissed off at us because of that.
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110505/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan_bin_laden>

Way to go about winning hearts and minds, not:eyes:

[RegieRocker]

138. How do you know they didn't OK the raid for the millions of dollars

we give and have given them?