Sorry not boxing but Bin Laden is dead.

[marbleheadmaui]

I will just respond to your points with numbers because I don't do multiple quotes.

1) I could tell you that I am Superman, you need more than that to go on in a court of law.

This is War, not some case of armed robbery. Local courts play no role, nor should they. The US, and indeed much of the world, recognized the legal distinction eons ago. I suppose you have a problem with the shooting down of Yamamoto's plane in 1943 too? Or the Brits own "shoot to kill" policy of the 1970's and 1980's with regard to the IRA?
2) So, where is the hard evidence that you speak of? Going on your logic a lot of people need the death penalty including your own presidents. Bush is responsible for a lot more tragedy, no?

Hard evidence? I went to over 30 funerals after 9/11, there was a giganctic hole put in the USS Cole etc. Bin Laden took credit for all of it. In time of war? That is MORE than enough. If you can't figuire out the moral difference between TARGETING civilians and unfortunate collateral damage? You have a significant ethical gap. it is like equating a guy who shoots up a schoolyard with a guy who runs over a child who chases a ball into the street while rushing his wife to the hospital because she's giving birth.

3) So Iraq was invaded with good justification because of it's obvious ties with Al Qaeda?

No Iraq was invaded because we had been at war with them for over a decade, Hussein continued to act aggressively, because the UN sanctions were a joke he was circumventing with enormous bribes and because our choice had basically come down to leaving him in power or taking him out. Did we (and everyone else BTW) think he had WMD's? Yup. But in reality that wasn't the core issue. Saddam was. I mean Brits have WMD's and I don't care. And yes Hussein had permitted multiple terrorists to use Iraq as a haven (look up Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Abdul Rahman Yassin and Ansar al-Islam for starters). For additional giggle points? Guess in which nation the courier who finally led us to bin Laden was first found and begun to be trailed?

4) Such as the direct evidence linking him to 9-11?

Like I said, this is War, not some episode of Law and Order.

5) Most countries have experienced terrorism in some some or other. The UK had its own experience with terrorism. It doesn't mean you shoot unarmed people in the head for justice.

Like hell it doesn't! You think the Brits have acted any differently? Look up Mairead Farrle, Sean Savage and Daniel McCann sometime and more generally the Brits "Shoot to kill" policy against the IRA.

6) Oh, the terrorists cannot hide? Get real, America has done nothing but expand it's invitation for hatred with the two wars. There is also Guantanamo bay, the torture, rendition etc. America has simply made itself even more maligned.

Yaaaaaaawn. Maligned by whom? Societies so savage they permit honor killings? Good! Societies so backwards they don't permit their women educations or to drive? Good! By people who have the ethical standards of a six year old who can't distinguish between crime and war nor between murder and collateral damage? Doesn't bother me in the least.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

I will just respond to your points with numbers because I don't do multiple quotes.

1) I could tell you that I am Superman, you need more than that to go on in a court of law.

This is War, not some case of armed robbery. Local courts play no role, nor should they. The US, and indeed much of the world, recognized the legal distinction eons ago. I suppose you have a problem with the shooting down of Yamamoto's plane in 1943 too? Or the Brits own "shoot to kill" policy of the 1970's and 1980's with regard to the IRA?
2) So, where is the hard evidence that you speak of? Going on your logic a lot of people need the death penalty including your own presidents. Bush is responsible for a lot more tragedy, no?

Hard evidence? I went to over 30 funerals after 9/11, there was a giganctic hole put in the USS Cole etc. Bin Laden took credit for all of it. In time of war? That is MORE than enough. If you can't figuire out the moral difference between TARGETING civilians and unfortunate collateral damage? You have a significant ethical gap. it is like equating a guy who shoots up a schoolyard with a guy who runs over a child who chases a ball into the street while rushing his wife to the hospital because she's giving birth.

3) So Iraq was invaded with good justification because of it's obvious ties with Al Qaeda?

No Iraq was invaded because we had been at war with them for over a decade, Hussein continued to act aggressively, because the UN sanctions were a joke he was circumventing with enormous bribes and because our choice had basically come down to leaving him in power or taking him out. Did we (and everyone else BTW) think he had WMD's? Yup. But in reality that wasn't the core issue. Saddam was. I mean Brits have WMD's and I don't care. And yes Hussein had permitted multiple terrorists to use Iraq as a haven (look up Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Abdul Rahman Yassin and Ansar al-Islam for starters).

4) Such as the direct evidence linking him to 9-11?

Like I said, this is War, not some episode of Law and Order.

5) Most countries have experienced terrorism in some some or other. The UK had its own experience with terrorism. It doesn't mean you shoot unarmed people in the head for justice.

Like hell it doesn't! You think the Brits have acted any differently? Look up Mairead Farrle, Sean Savage and Daniel McCann sometime and more generally the Brits "Shoot to kill" policy against the IRA.

6) Oh, the terrorists cannot hide? Get real, America has done nothing but expand it's invitation for hatred with the two wars. There is also Guantanamo bay, the torture, rendition etc. America has simply made itself even more maligned.

Yaaaaaaawn. Maligned by whom? Societies so savage they permit honor killings? Good! Societies so backwards they don't permit their women educations or to drive? Good! By people who have the ethical standards of a six year old who can't distinguish between crime and war nor between murder and collateral damage? Doesn't bother me in the least.

I am about to respond but you beat me to it. Good points.

[marbleheadmaui]

I will just respond to your points with numbers because I don't do multiple quotes.

1) I could tell you that I am Superman, you need more than that to go on in a court of law.

This is War, not some case of armed robbery. Local courts play no role, nor should they. The US, and indeed much of the world, recognized the legal distinction eons ago. I suppose you have a problem with the shooting down of Yamamoto's plane in 1943 too? Or the Brits own "shoot to kill" policy of the 1970's and 1980's with regard to the IRA?
2) So, where is the hard evidence that you speak of? Going on your logic a lot of people need the death penalty including your own presidents. Bush is responsible for a lot more tragedy, no?

Hard evidence? I went to over 30 funerals after 9/11, there was a giganctic hole put in the USS Cole etc. Bin Laden took credit for all of it. In time of war? That is MORE than enough. If you can't figuire out the moral difference between TARGETING civilians and unfortunate collateral damage? You have a significant ethical gap. it is like equating a guy who shoots up a schoolyard with a guy who runs over a child who chases a ball into the street while rushing his wife to the hospital because she's giving birth.

3) So Iraq was invaded with good justification because of it's obvious ties with Al Qaeda?

No Iraq was invaded because we had been at war with them for over a decade, Hussein continued to act aggressively, because the UN sanctions were a joke he was circumventing with enormous bribes and because our choice had basically come down to leaving him in power or taking him out. Did we (and everyone else BTW) think he had WMD's? Yup. But in reality that wasn't the core issue. Saddam was. I mean Brits have WMD's and I don't care. And yes Hussein had permitted multiple terrorists to use Iraq as a haven (look up Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Abdul Rahman Yassin and Ansar al-Islam for starters).

4) Such as the direct evidence linking him to 9-11?

Like I said, this is War, not some episode of Law and Order.

5) Most countries have experienced terrorism in some some or other. The UK had its own experience with terrorism. It doesn't mean you shoot unarmed people in the head for justice.

Like hell it doesn't! You think the Brits have acted any differently? Look up Mairead Farrle, Sean Savage and Daniel McCann sometime and more generally the Brits "Shoot to kill" policy against the IRA.

6) Oh, the terrorists cannot hide? Get real, America has done nothing but expand it's invitation for hatred with the two wars. There is also Guantanamo bay, the torture, rendition etc. America has simply made itself even more maligned.

Yaaaaaaawn. Maligned by whom? Societies so savage they permit honor killings? Good! Societies so backwards they don't permit their women educations or to drive? Good! By people who have the ethical standards of a six year old who can't distinguish between crime and war nor between murder and collateral damage? Doesn't bother me in the least.

I am about to respond but you beat me to it. Good points.

Don't let that stop you from jumping in!

[InTheNeutralCorner]

I will just respond to your points with numbers because I don't do multiple quotes.

1) I could tell you that I am Superman, you need more than that to go on in a court of law.

This is War, not some case of armed robbery. Local courts play no role, nor should they. The US, and indeed much of the world, recognized the legal distinction eons ago. I suppose you have a problem with the shooting down of Yamamoto's plane in 1943 too? Or the Brits own "shoot to kill" policy of the 1970's and 1980's with regard to the IRA?
2) So, where is the hard evidence that you speak of? Going on your logic a lot of people need the death penalty including your own presidents. Bush is responsible for a lot more tragedy, no?

Hard evidence? I went to over 30 funerals after 9/11, there was a giganctic hole put in the USS Cole etc. Bin Laden took credit for all of it. In time of war? That is MORE than enough. If you can't figuire out the moral difference between TARGETING civilians and unfortunate collateral damage? You have a significant ethical gap. it is like equating a guy who shoots up a schoolyard with a guy who runs over a child who chases a ball into the street while rushing his wife to the hospital because she's giving birth.

3) So Iraq was invaded with good justification because of it's obvious ties with Al Qaeda?

No Iraq was invaded because we had been at war with them for over a decade, Hussein continued to act aggressively, because the UN sanctions were a joke he was circumventing with enormous bribes and because our choice had basically come down to leaving him in power or taking him out. Did we (and everyone else BTW) think he had WMD's? Yup. But in reality that wasn't the core issue. Saddam was. I mean Brits have WMD's and I don't care. And yes Hussein had permitted multiple terrorists to use Iraq as a haven (look up Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Abdul Rahman Yassin and Ansar al-Islam for starters).

4) Such as the direct evidence linking him to 9-11?

Like I said, this is War, not some episode of Law and Order.

5) Most countries have experienced terrorism in some some or other. The UK had its own experience with terrorism. It doesn't mean you shoot unarmed people in the head for justice.

Like hell it doesn't! You think the Brits have acted any differently? Look up Mairead Farrle, Sean Savage and Daniel McCann sometime and more generally the Brits "Shoot to kill" policy against the IRA.

6) Oh, the terrorists cannot hide? Get real, America has done nothing but expand it's invitation for hatred with the two wars. There is also Guantanamo bay, the torture, rendition etc. America has simply made itself even more maligned.

Yaaaaaaawn. Maligned by whom? Societies so savage they permit honor killings? Good! Societies so backwards they don't permit their women educations or to drive? Good! By people who have the ethical standards of a six year old who can't distinguish between crime and war nor between murder and collateral damage? Doesn't bother me in the least.

I am about to respond but you beat me to it. Good points.

Don't let that stop you from jumping in!

Nah, I don't want miles to think that we ganged up on him, that we're "expanding the invitation for hatred".

[marbleheadmaui]

I will just respond to your points with numbers because I don't do multiple quotes.

1) I could tell you that I am Superman, you need more than that to go on in a court of law.

This is War, not some case of armed robbery. Local courts play no role, nor should they. The US, and indeed much of the world, recognized the legal distinction eons ago. I suppose you have a problem with the shooting down of Yamamoto's plane in 1943 too? Or the Brits own "shoot to kill" policy of the 1970's and 1980's with regard to the IRA?
2) So, where is the hard evidence that you speak of? Going on your logic a lot of people need the death penalty including your own presidents. Bush is responsible for a lot more tragedy, no?

Hard evidence? I went to over 30 funerals after 9/11, there was a giganctic hole put in the USS Cole etc. Bin Laden took credit for all of it. In time of war? That is MORE than enough. If you can't figuire out the moral difference between TARGETING civilians and unfortunate collateral damage? You have a significant ethical gap. it is like equating a guy who shoots up a schoolyard with a guy who runs over a child who chases a ball into the street while rushing his wife to the hospital because she's giving birth.

3) So Iraq was invaded with good justification because of it's obvious ties with Al Qaeda?

No Iraq was invaded because we had been at war with them for over a decade, Hussein continued to act aggressively, because the UN sanctions were a joke he was circumventing with enormous bribes and because our choice had basically come down to leaving him in power or taking him out. Did we (and everyone else BTW) think he had WMD's? Yup. But in reality that wasn't the core issue. Saddam was. I mean Brits have WMD's and I don't care. And yes Hussein had permitted multiple terrorists to use Iraq as a haven (look up Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Abdul Rahman Yassin and Ansar al-Islam for starters).

4) Such as the direct evidence linking him to 9-11?

Like I said, this is War, not some episode of Law and Order.

5) Most countries have experienced terrorism in some some or other. The UK had its own experience with terrorism. It doesn't mean you shoot unarmed people in the head for justice.

Like hell it doesn't! You think the Brits have acted any differently? Look up Mairead Farrle, Sean Savage and Daniel McCann sometime and more generally the Brits "Shoot to kill" policy against the IRA.

6) Oh, the terrorists cannot hide? Get real, America has done nothing but expand it's invitation for hatred with the two wars. There is also Guantanamo bay, the torture, rendition etc. America has simply made itself even more maligned.

Yaaaaaaawn. Maligned by whom? Societies so savage they permit honor killings? Good! Societies so backwards they don't permit their women educations or to drive? Good! By people who have the ethical standards of a six year old who can't distinguish between crime and war nor between murder and collateral damage? Doesn't bother me in the least.

I am about to respond but you beat me to it. Good points.

Don't let that stop you from jumping in!

Nah, I don't want miles to think that we ganged up on him, that we're "expanding the invitation for hatred".

LOL, fair enough. Among the many things in this world that baffle me is the notion that a nation should have a goal "to be liked." Like International Relations are some sort of popularity contest among High School cliques. Nations don't have long term friends, they have long term interests. The other is that it is somehow desireable to be approved of by thugs, dictators, tyrants, societies with stone-aged values or the faculty of Swarthmore College (known as "The Kremlin on the Krumm"). Here's one more. That people approve of the UN, an institution in whose General Assembly, the vote of a liberal democracy carries precisely the same weight as the vote of a murderous thug who arbitrarily kills and imprisons his own people. Like those two are morally equivalent and that equality represents some sort of admirable moral structure. Baffling.

[Gandalf]

I will just respond to your points with numbers because I don't do multiple quotes.

1) I could tell you that I am Superman, you need more than that to go on in a court of law.

This is War, not some case of armed robbery. Local courts play no role, nor should they. The US, and indeed much of the world, recognized the legal distinction eons ago. I suppose you have a problem with the shooting down of Yamamoto's plane in 1943 too? Or the Brits own "shoot to kill" policy of the 1970's and 1980's with regard to the IRA?
2) So, where is the hard evidence that you speak of? Going on your logic a lot of people need the death penalty including your own presidents. Bush is responsible for a lot more tragedy, no?

Hard evidence? I went to over 30 funerals after 9/11, there was a giganctic hole put in the USS Cole etc. Bin Laden took credit for all of it. In time of war? That is MORE than enough. If you can't figuire out the moral difference between TARGETING civilians and unfortunate collateral damage? You have a significant ethical gap. it is like equating a guy who shoots up a schoolyard with a guy who runs over a child who chases a ball into the street while rushing his wife to the hospital because she's giving birth.

3) So Iraq was invaded with good justification because of it's obvious ties with Al Qaeda?

No Iraq was invaded because we had been at war with them for over a decade, Hussein continued to act aggressively, because the UN sanctions were a joke he was circumventing with enormous bribes and because our choice had basically come down to leaving him in power or taking him out. Did we (and everyone else BTW) think he had WMD's? Yup. But in reality that wasn't the core issue. Saddam was. I mean Brits have WMD's and I don't care. And yes Hussein had permitted multiple terrorists to use Iraq as a haven (look up Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Abdul Rahman Yassin and Ansar al-Islam for starters). For additional giggle points? Guess in which nation the courier who finally led us to bin Laden was first found and begun to be trailed?

4) Such as the direct evidence linking him to 9-11?

Like I said, this is War, not some episode of Law and Order.

5) Most countries have experienced terrorism in some some or other. The UK had its own experience with terrorism. It doesn't mean you shoot unarmed people in the head for justice.

Like hell it doesn't! You think the Brits have acted any differently? Look up Mairead Farrle, Sean Savage and Daniel McCann sometime and more generally the Brits "Shoot to kill" policy against the IRA.

6) Oh, the terrorists cannot hide? Get real, America has done nothing but expand it's invitation for hatred with the two wars. There is also Guantanamo bay, the torture, rendition etc. America has simply made itself even more maligned.

Yaaaaaaawn. Maligned by whom? Societies so savage they permit honor killings? Good! Societies so backwards they don't permit their women educations or to drive? Good! By people who have the ethical standards of a six year old who can't distinguish between crime and war nor between murder and collateral damage? Doesn't bother me in the least.

But that was not the reason why we went to Afghanistan. Stop changing the goalposts. We went there to capture terrorists that we thought were being harboured in Afghanistan. If the pretext was to change Afghanistan politically then there should have been an open discussion and a case built up. As things stand we were trigger happy and invaded within weeks of 9-11. It was a mess and we were wrong.

You have to respect international law or else you just become a terrorist state yourself. America is a terrorist state.

[No Contest]

Miles I dare you to go to that bar with the Marines and start talking politics like you do on here. Triple dog dare you. If you dont have the balls to say the stuff your saying here in public, is anyone really supposed to take you serious? Actually I think your just trolling, you and Bilbo are troll kings. I would be certain of it but you guys post like paragraphs upon paragraphs of demented rambling.

[Gandalf]

Miles I dare you to go to that bar with the Marines and start talking politics like you do on here. Triple dog dare you. If you dont have the balls to say the stuff your saying here in public, is anyone really supposed to take you serious? Actually I think your just trolling, you and Bilbo are troll kings. I would be certain of it but you guys post like paragraphs upon paragraphs of demented rambling.

I wouldn't talk politics with drunken people who earn their money from the military industrial complex. Their world view is bound to be quite different from my own. Of course they are going to think it right to assasinate people. Of course they are going to think it acceptable to invade countries illegally. You don't question, you just do, you are getting paid to follow orders. On the whole you are not dealing with intellectuals, you are dealing with relatively uneducated people who are being asked to carry out tasks come what may. That is a generalisation, there are exceptions, but is pretty much the norm.

There may be decent people, but it wouldn't be wise to denounce your government and society. You would likely be weeded out. Bradley Manning has been weeded out and is dealing with the consequences. It doesn't pay to be in the military and have an overriding sense of morality. You want to get paid, you just do your work.

I believe everything that I am saying on here. If there is a hole in any of my arguments then feel free to point them out to me. I don't say these things to be provocative, I say them because I look at the evidence and respond accordingly. I am not a troll, but do feel free to argue as I see fit. There are no restrictions and so I type at will. I'm just enjoying myself.

[No Contest]

Ok, fine but if you dont stand up for what you believe in even in the face of an ass kicking then you must not be that committed to your cause is what I'm saying. Shit you must be able to convince them with your dazzling intellect right, rationalize the shit out of them, even if yours is only a moral victory?

[Gandalf]

Ok, fine but if you dont stand up for what you believe in even in the face of an ass kicking then you must not be that committed to your cause is what I'm saying. Shit you must be able to convince them with your dazzling intellect right, rationalize the shit out of them, even if yours is only a moral victory?

Kind of true, but I only went out one night. It would be a bit weird to go out there and just talk hardcore politics to relative strangers. Usually it's just playing some pool and small talk. I keep the more serious stuff for people who I am closer to and have warmed to. I view the hidden board here as my living room. Anyone is free to serve themselves a drink and anything goes.

[marbleheadmaui]

Miles I dare you to go to that bar with the Marines and start talking politics like you do on here. Triple dog dare you. If you dont have the balls to say the stuff your saying here in public, is anyone really supposed to take you serious? Actually I think your just trolling, you and Bilbo are troll kings. I would be certain of it but you guys post like paragraphs upon paragraphs of demented rambling.

I wouldn't talk politics with drunken people who earn their money from the military industrial complex. Their world view is bound to be quite different from my own. Of course they are going to think it right to assasinate people. Of course they are going to think it acceptable to invade countries illegally. You don't question, you just do, you are getting paid to follow orders. On the whole you are not dealing with intellectuals, you are dealing with relatively uneducated people who are being asked to carry out tasks come what may. That is a generalisation, there are exceptions, but is pretty much the norm.

There may be decent people, but it wouldn't be wise to denounce your government and society. You would likely be weeded out. Bradley Manning has been weeded out and is dealing with the consequences. It doesn't pay to be in the military and have an overriding sense of morality. You want to get paid, you just do your work.

I believe everything that I am saying on here. If there is a hole in any of my arguments then feel free to point them out to me. I don't say these things to be provocative, I say them because I look at the evidence and respond accordingly. I am not a troll, but do feel free to argue as I see fit. There are no restrictions and so I type at will. I'm just enjoying myself.

You SERIOUSLY don't have a clue about the norm in today's US military and you ESPECIALLY don't have a clue just how gifted the elite Special Forces Groups are. They are the most technically proficient, have displayed the best judgement and their inventiveness (problem solving ability) is a key trait. He also must be able to teach his skills to others. Specifically the upper end of the Special Forces are usually in their 30's and 40's. Theya re enormously experienced. Talk to members of the US military in those branches or at least do some reading before you say such indefensible things.

Brad Manning committed treason. He may have done so as a matter of conscience, but it is undeniably Treason by the Constitutional definition.

[marbleheadmaui]

But that was not the reason why we went to Afghanistan. Stop changing the goalposts. We went there to capture terrorists that we thought were being harboured in Afghanistan. If the pretext was to change Afghanistan politically then there should have been an open discussion and a case built up. As things stand we were trigger happy and invaded within weeks of 9-11. It was a mess and we were wrong.

You have to respect international law or else you just become a terrorist state yourself. America is a terrorist state.

LOL, who is changing goalposts? The lack of clarity in your thinking is pretty funny. We ABSOLUTELY went to Afghanistan to change it politically. Here is the clincher statement by President Bush before Congress.

And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating. These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

Pretty clear that the Taliban either acts or is stripped of power aka changing Afghanistan politically.

LOL at "Respect International Law or you are a terrorist state." Fishing inside a twelve mile limit doesn't make one a terrorist. Terrorism can be defined in a pretty straightforward manner. Intentionally targeting non-combatants with violence in forwarding a political goal.

Osama was a combatant, we sent in troops instead of simply bombing the place (clearly safer towards non-combatants). So it fails to meet a reasonable definition.

I assume you're a Brit. If you are, it is ESPECIALLY funny judgemental stuff coming from a citizen of a nation responsible for the Amritsar Massacre, The Loughall Ambush, the "shoot to kill" policy towards the IRA, the Bombing of Dresden and on and on and on.

[Gandalf]

But that was not the reason why we went to Afghanistan. Stop changing the goalposts. We went there to capture terrorists that we thought were being harboured in Afghanistan. If the pretext was to change Afghanistan politically then there should have been an open discussion and a case built up. As things stand we were trigger happy and invaded within weeks of 9-11. It was a mess and we were wrong.

You have to respect international law or else you just become a terrorist state yourself. America is a terrorist state.

LOL, who is changing goalposts? The lack of clarity in your thinking is pretty funny. We ABSOLUTELY went to Afghanistan to change it politically. Here is the clincher statement by President Bush before Congress.

And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating. These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

Pretty clear that the Taliban either acts or is stripped of power aka changing Afghanistan politically.

LOL at "Respect International Law or you are a terrorist state." Fishing inside a twelve mile limit doesn't make one a terrorist. Terrorism can be defined in a pretty straightforward manner. Intentionally targeting non-combatants with violence in forwarding a political goal.

Osama was a combatant, we sent in troops instead of simply bombing the place (clearly safer towards non-combatants). So it fails to meet a reasonable definition.

I assume you're a Brit. If you are, it is ESPECIALLY funny judgemental stuff coming from a citizen of a nation responsible for the Amritsar Massacre, The Loughall Ambush, the "shoot to kill" policy towards the IRA, the Bombing of Dresden and on and on and on.

So when the Taliban asked for evidence proving that Bin Laden was behind the 9-11 attack what was the US response? You decided to go after a collective group of terrorists by invading a sovereign country with little planning and no real anticipation of the consequences. This is why the Afghanistan conquest has gone on far longer than WW2. It was a mess. There was no case made against the Taliban, they did not cause 9-11. Afghanistan was invaded within days of 9-11. Just as Obama is a terrorist, Bush and Blair are war criminals. All of them are monsters. It's just that two of them are viewed as legit and immune and the other is/was an outcast.

You are trying to twist the argument in anticipation of me somehow becoming patriotic about acts of terrorism commited by my own country. It doesn't work because I denounce my country in equal measure. I loath excessive concentrations of power that use that power in malicious and immoral ways and in many regards the UK and America are much the same in that regard.

[marbleheadmaui]

But that was not the reason why we went to Afghanistan. Stop changing the goalposts. We went there to capture terrorists that we thought were being harboured in Afghanistan. If the pretext was to change Afghanistan politically then there should have been an open discussion and a case built up. As things stand we were trigger happy and invaded within weeks of 9-11. It was a mess and we were wrong.

You have to respect international law or else you just become a terrorist state yourself. America is a terrorist state.

LOL, who is changing goalposts? The lack of clarity in your thinking is pretty funny. We ABSOLUTELY went to Afghanistan to change it politically. Here is the clincher statement by President Bush before Congress.

And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating. These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

Pretty clear that the Taliban either acts or is stripped of power aka changing Afghanistan politically.

LOL at "Respect International Law or you are a terrorist state." Fishing inside a twelve mile limit doesn't make one a terrorist. Terrorism can be defined in a pretty straightforward manner. Intentionally targeting non-combatants with violence in forwarding a political goal.

Osama was a combatant, we sent in troops instead of simply bombing the place (clearly safer towards non-combatants). So it fails to meet a reasonable definition.

I assume you're a Brit. If you are, it is ESPECIALLY funny judgemental stuff coming from a citizen of a nation responsible for the Amritsar Massacre, The Loughall Ambush, the "shoot to kill" policy towards the IRA, the Bombing of Dresden and on and on and on.

So when the Taliban asked for evidence proving that Bin Laden was behind the 9-11 attack what was the US response? You decided to go after a collective group of terrorists by invading a sovereign country with little planning and no real anticipation of the consequences. This is why the Afghanistan conquest has gone on far longer than WW2. It was a mess. There was no case made against the Taliban, they did not cause 9-11. Afghanistan was invaded within days of 9-11. Just as Obama is a terrorist, Bush and Blair are war criminals. All of them are monsters. It's just that two of them are viewed as legit and immune and the other is/was an outcast.

You are trying to twist the argument in anticipation of me somehow becoming patriotic about acts of terrorism commited by my own country. It doesn't work because I denounce my country in equal measure. I loath excessive concentrations of power that use that power in malicious and immoral ways and in many regards the UK and America are much the same in that regard.

LOL, NOW who is trying to move the goalposts? LOL, no planning?? Let's see, the Soviets lose a million men in a decade and can't do anyhting but get shot at, we take 7,000 men, ally ourselves with the Northern Alliance and take down the Taliban in what sixty days, hold elections within a year and you say there was no planning Bwahahahahaha. Come on, seriously, get a grip! We didn't have elections in Germany after WWII until what? 1955? Japan didn't have any until 1957?

Saying the Taliban didn't cause 9/11 is absolutely right...and absolutely a dumb way to look at things. THEY WERE HARBORING THOSE WHO DID!

Glad to see you despise your own nation. Good luck loathing power from behind your keyboard where you benifit daily from it. I'm sure you'll have a major impact! Oh wait, maybe you can speak truth to power and get a high five from Noam Chomsky!

Invading Afghanistan was, by any reasonable ethical code, justified. One can always argue about its wisdom of course, but that's not what we are talking here. Calling Bush and Blair war criminals robs those words of any useful meaning.

[Gandalf]

You have doubled the number of troops since Obama took power and have been there nigh on a decade. You are fighting people that basically want their nation to be free from foreign invaders. The number of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is estimated to be a few dozen at best. It was poorly planned, you don't try to catch terrorists by invading a nation. What should have happened is that we provided some evidence that Bin Laden and co caused 9-11. We refused to do this and chose to invade regardless. Now if you regard that as legitimate and correct behaviour then that is your call. I view it quite differently. You want to try someone then you need to show the evidence. We didn't do it then and just this week we once again used a bullet rather than try to bring a man to trial.

As for trying to change the world, I am not trying to do that. I have my own work to do and post here for leisure. This is just what I enjoy doing. Actually it would be a great honour to high five Mr Chomsky. He is one of America's true heroes.