Sorry not boxing but Bin Laden is dead.

[Gandalf]

Not to damage any egos here Miles... but I wouldn't flatter yourself to think that you are on any list at all.

Billions of people on the planet and you're a teacher who makes some pretty generic points about the man... not 'Miles X'...

If there is a list, it's reserved for the big boys... of which you and I aren't.

Damn shame that, I was hoping I was at least in the top 100,000. It seems posts attacking America get you nowhere here. I need to find a new promoter.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

Why is Osama Bin Laden different? Do you have specific evidence that he caused 9-11?

Haven't you seen the videotape of OBL admitting to ordering what happened on 9-11? I am afraid that if you see that tape you might even question its authenticity.

The man could have been captured and brought to trial and yet a bullet was put in his brain.

You are talking about an ideal society which is different from the real world. There has been no doubt that OBL is the mastermind behind the tragedy so the notion of innocent until proven guilty goes out the window. Whatever he did deserves the death penalty. Ideally, he should have been brought to trial (if he didn't resist) but I, like most of the Americans, has no complain about the outcome of the raid.

Why should anyone be proud of being from such a trigger happy country with a gun in every home and seemingly in every country at the wink of a President? Who is next....Julian Assange? Am I number 20921 on the list? Where do you draw the line?

Every country has their flaws and misgivings. Not a lot of home here has a gun but every legal and responsible individuals has the freedom to own one. The President is not almighty, he can be impeached or voted out of office. And it's this country that has sacrificed a lot of it's citizen so that several countries remain free.

America had the opportunity to bring a wanted man to justice. They could have detained him and provided the evidence that he was the mastermind of all these terrorist acts, but instead they defaulted with the good old fashioned bullet to the head. It leaves more questions unanswered than ever.

Like what questions?

They might as well have let him live in peace where he was.

It's easy for you to say since it's not your country that lost thousands of lives. And he always remains a threat while alive. Did you think he will just fade in the sunset happy with what he did?

All this has done is make America look more morally devoid and the Muslim world more angry. It has been another bullet to the head of America if anything. Once again Bin Laden makes a mockery of America and their so called morality and justice.

America already looked morally devoid and most of the Muslim world are already angry at this country no matter what it does. It had been a mockery even from its citizens that this country can not even locate Osama. This sends a message to the terrorist that they can run but they can not hide.

[marbleheadmaui]

I wouldn't like to live in a country where a bunch of ignorant rednecks lead by some Captain America can just fly over and do some killing.

This is better than living in a country where another country can just fly over your territory and there is nothing that your country can do about it. Not that I am condoning countries from encroaching in other nation's territories but this OBL situation is different. I don't even think you are proud of your country because you don't show it.
And your comment about 'ignorant rednecks' had been addressed by Mars_ax.

I wonder what would the coverage of that raid be if they mistakenly blew up some innocent civilians.

I believe that they are aware of that risk and took it because the goal outweighted the risk. The US had been critized in the past, even by me, for operations involving the death of innocent civilians. I may have even criticized them in this operation if that happened but it DIDN'T.

If I were Pakistani president and Americans did that without my permission (and I would never give them permission) I would get very angry.

This had already been answered by AdamGB. They are in no position to be very angry.

Why is Osama Bin Laden different? Do you have specific evidence that he caused 9-11?

The man could have been captured and brought to trial and yet a bullet was put in his brain. Why should anyone be proud of being from such a trigger happy country with a gun in every home and seemingly in every country at the wink of a President? Who is next....Julian Assange? Am I number 20921 on the list? Where do you draw the line?

America had the opportunity to bring a wanted man to justice. They could have detained him and provided the evidence that he was the mastermind of all these terrorist acts, but instead they defaulted with the good old fashioned bullet to the head. It leaves more questions unanswered than ever. They might as well have let him live in peace where he was.

All this has done is make America look more morally devoid and the Muslim world more angry. It has been another bullet to the head of America if anything. Once again Bin Laden makes a mockery of America and their so called morality and justice.

1. Osama ADMITTED to ordering 9/11.
2. Guns are just a tool. In the US's case a tool that prevents us from being at the arbitrary whim of gov't. Fearing guns is silly. Who is next? Ayman Al-Zarwahiri for starters!
3.We DID bring him to justice. (I really hope we have him alive and are interrogating the shit out of him and his "death" is just a ploy).
4. Morally devoid Really? For executing an admitted mass killer?
5. Screw the Muslim world and their anger. As near as I can figure there are two sorts of Muslims in the world at the moment. Those who are terrorists (or support them through money, intel etc) and those too cowed to do anything about it. When the Muslim world treats its terrorists the way the US treated Tim McVeigh (rather than naming their kids after them) I'll care about Muslim anger.
6. Anyone who doesn't think the execution of an admitted mass murderer isn't moral or just has a significant ethical problem.

[Gandalf]

Why is Osama Bin Laden different? Do you have specific evidence that he caused 9-11?

Haven't you seen the videotape of OBL admitting to ordering what happened on 9-11? I am afraid that if you see that tape you might even question its authenticity.

The man could have been captured and brought to trial and yet a bullet was put in his brain.

You are talking about an ideal society which is different from the real world. There has been no doubt that OBL is the mastermind behind the tragedy so the notion of innocent until proven guilty goes out the window. Whatever he did deserves the death penalty. Ideally, he should have been brought to trial (if he didn't resist) but I, like most of the Americans, has no complain about the outcome of the raid.

Why should anyone be proud of being from such a trigger happy country with a gun in every home and seemingly in every country at the wink of a President? Who is next....Julian Assange? Am I number 20921 on the list? Where do you draw the line?

Every country has their flaws and misgivings. Not a lot of home here has a gun but every legal and responsible individuals has the freedom to own one. The President is not almighty, he can be impeached or voted out of office. And it's this country that has sacrificed a lot of it's citizen so that several countries remain free.

America had the opportunity to bring a wanted man to justice. They could have detained him and provided the evidence that he was the mastermind of all these terrorist acts, but instead they defaulted with the good old fashioned bullet to the head. It leaves more questions unanswered than ever.

Like what questions?

They might as well have let him live in peace where he was.

It's easy for you to say since it's not your country that lost thousands of lives. And he always remains a threat while alive. Did you think he will just fade in the sunset happy with what he did?

All this has done is make America look more morally devoid and the Muslim world more angry. It has been another bullet to the head of America if anything. Once again Bin Laden makes a mockery of America and their so called morality and justice.

America already looked morally devoid and most of the Muslim world are already angry at this country no matter what it does. It had been a mockery even from its citizens that this country can not even locate Osama. This sends a message to the terrorist that they can run but they can not hide.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

[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?

[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]

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.