Where should the credit go?
 

Where should the credit go?
 

On Thu, 05 May 2011 13:55:37 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 12:42:22 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:25:15 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 11:38:43 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 04/05/2011 9:46 AM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2011 04:50:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Here, just for the fun of it...


http://utopianist.com/wp-content/upl...lled-trump.jpg

Careful, Tim. The liberals are already *extremely* upset that Osama didn't receive a fair trial, but
was instead shot while defenseless.

You know, I've reached a decision. When Harry accuses Scotty of pedophilia, and therefore is
accusing Scotty's daughter of incest, I think he's committing a vile act. Likewise, when Scotty
accuses Harry of pedophilia, without any basis, Scotty is committing a vile act.

Therefore, I've decided to have nothing to do with either of them. They both owe each other an
apology. Hopefully they're both man enough to do so.

Freaking fleabagger lefties, didn't get to spend millions on useless
liberal lawyers? Wow, my sympathies not. Osama needed it. Over 300
indictments and warrants properly processed from multiple
countries...Osama just needed a bullet.

Think of the money it saved taxpayers, the chopper loss was peanuts.
Keeping Osama for trial then incareration costs... best spent bullets
were the ones sent to Osama.


I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not
targeting people for assassination.
Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil
war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000
troops.

It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they
made the right choice and blew his head off on site.

Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could
not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if
he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story.

There was no such repeal of any policy. We target people all the time.
I believe it's mostly appropriate, given what they've done or are
doing.

So, you're claiming to know all the details of the raid, including the
motion by motion action? Sounds to me like you really don't give Obama
an "A". Rather, you're just looking for a way to put him down.


Not at all but it is clear this was a hit, no more, no less. The SEALs
have reported that there was only one armed person there, the courier,
who they shot right away, then they shot 3 more unarmed people,
including Bin Laden. This is the report the government has released.
I think they all needed killing.

So, you don't know all or even most of the details, yet you're
claiming you know it was a "hit." Sounds like you're just looking
around for an excuse to claim Obama is evil.

Where should the credit go?
 

On Thu, 05 May 2011 15:57:16 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:17:11 -0400, Percy wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2011 13:55:37 -0400, sent the
following message
On Wed, 04 May 2011 12:42:22 -0700, wrote:






Not at all but it is clear this was a hit, no more, no less. The
SEALs
have reported that there was only one armed person there, the
courier,
who they shot right away, then they shot 3 more unarmed people,
including Bin Laden. This is the report the government has
released.
I think they all needed killing.

Silly you. You say the murders of obl and company were premeditated.
Like a mob hit? Or first degree murder? The libbers ain't gonna like
their pres. being named a common fellon. There must be some way to
blame it on GWB.


I think the correct term is "executive action"


Actually, it's really easy to blame it on Bush. He wasn't really
interested in getting OBL after the first try. He said so publically.
If he had not invaded Iraq, he could have concentrated on the
situation in Afg.

Where should the credit go?
 

On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:04:53 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:

I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not
targeting people for assassination.
Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil
war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000
troops.

It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they
made the right choice and blew his head off on site.

Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could
not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if
he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story.


I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama
was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of
what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter.

That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer
dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening
fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop."

Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A
trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try criminals
and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals
otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists.

The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one
armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to
kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice.

40 minutes of firefight and only one armed man? Total BS. It's clear
what your agenda is here.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...en-raid-emerge

Where should the credit go?
 

On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:48:02 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:04:53 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:

I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not
targeting people for assassination.
Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil
war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000
troops.

It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they
made the right choice and blew his head off on site.

Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could
not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if
he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story.


I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama
was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of
what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter.

That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer
dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening
fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop."

Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A
trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try criminals
and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals
otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists.

The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one
armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to
kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice.

Very. But it was not in keeping with the liberal interpretation of 'American values'.

Fortunately, a racist/liar like you isn't in keeping with American
values.

Where should the credit go?
 

On Thu, 05 May 2011 16:05:40 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2011 15:00:49 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

John H wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:04:53 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not
targeting people for assassination.
Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil
war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000
troops.

It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they
made the right choice and blew his head off on site.

Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could
not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if
he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story.

I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama
was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of
what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter.

That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer
dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening
fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop."

Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A
trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try criminals
and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals
otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists.
The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one
armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to
kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice.

Very. But it was not in keeping with the liberal interpretation of 'American values'.

The "conservative interpretation" of American values is to shoot, no
matter what? That's the sort of stupidity that got us into Iraq.

Mind you, I don't oppose the shooting of bin Laden, assuming he was
given a chance to surrender alive and turned it down.

I doubt there was much of an offer to surrender. They certainly could
have taken him alive if that was what the mission was. If nothing
else they could have knee capped him. These guys can hit whatever they
shoot at inside of a room

Sure. You know everything about everything. We get it.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...en-raid-emerge

Where should the credit go?
 

On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:01:16 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 12:44:29 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:13:20 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 10:55:14 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 12:19:08 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 09:14:47 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

And Obama agreed with Bush so what is your point? The reality is it
became politically convenient to kill Osama.

--
I think Obama went as quickly as he could. They did not want to ****
this up so they built a mock up of the compound and trained for months
to get it right.,

I really think the populace will have forgotten about this by 3q12
anyway. There will be dozens of things that went through the news
cycle by then. The election is still going to come down to mundane
things like gas prices, unemployment and I bet inflation will have
showed it's ugly head by then. Obama's biggest fear is going to be the
recurrence of the terms "malaise" and "stagflation".

Really? His biggest fear? There's no indication of either of those
things.

There is no indication of inflation???
Do you go to the grocery store or a gas station? Have you paid any
"fuel surcharges" lately? The falling dollar is going to make that a
lot worse since we import most of our hard goods these days.
As for malaise, have you read any of Bob's posts. That is one
depressed man.

Maybe he read the Daily Beast article about the worst 10 college
degrees you can seek, based on what you can expect to earn.
"Chemistry" is #9.
It was in Newsweek this week (the one with the royals on the cover)

Aside from gas prices, nothing much is happening, and even those are
likely temporary. Of course, for you, the sky is continually falling.
I hope you haven't made any plans for after May 21st.

Now you're claiming that because one person complains, therefore,
there is a general malaise. Whatever.

I guess your maid does all the shopping for you. Maybe you should go
to the store and compare prices to what they were a year or so ago.

Have you looked at the spot price of corn lately. That is not just
corn on the cob, corn is in just about everything you eat. (animal
feed, starch or high fructose corn syrup)
Of course the ethanol fuel program is part of that increase but corn
flakes are still $4 a box.

.

I guess you've got to worry about something, so it might as well be
the imaginary inflation rather than the imaginary financial meltdown
scheduled for tomorrow or the imaginary end of the world scheduled for
the 21st.

Where should the credit go?
 

On Thu, 05 May 2011 16:05:40 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2011 15:00:49 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

John H wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:04:53 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not
targeting people for assassination.
Maybe some day we can return to the Eisenhower policy of shaping civil
war outcomes using covert means and without sending in a 150,000
troops.

It was certainly clear that we could have taken OBL alive but they
made the right choice and blew his head off on site.

Plume, before you protest that, are you really saying a SEAL could
not have wrestled a sickly, 54 year old, unarmed man to the ground if
he wanted to? They saw him, they shot him end of story.

I prefer to deal with what we know...or were told. We were told Osama
was given an opportunity to surrender and live or go out in a blaze of
what he probably assumed was glory. We were told he chose the latter.

That's no different than the choices the police in this country offer
dangerous fugitives who they have cornered or who respond by opening
fire. It usually is referred to as "Death by Cop."

Assuming that was the case, I don't have a problem with the outcome. A
trial would have been long and messy, but it is our way to try criminals
and prove their guilt in a court of law. To dispose of criminals
otherwise brings us down to the level of the terrorists.
The reports coming back from the SEALs is that there was only one
armed man there, who they shot right away. It is clear they wanted to
kill OBL. I think that was a wise choice.

Very. But it was not in keeping with the liberal interpretation of 'American values'.

The "conservative interpretation" of American values is to shoot, no
matter what? That's the sort of stupidity that got us into Iraq.

Mind you, I don't oppose the shooting of bin Laden, assuming he was
given a chance to surrender alive and turned it down.

I doubt there was much of an offer to surrender. They certainly could
have taken him alive if that was what the mission was. If nothing
else they could have knee capped him. These guys can hit whatever they
shoot at inside of a room

The 'given a chance to surrender' bit is horse crap. You got it right.

Where should the credit go?
 

On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:02:21 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 12:45:32 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:03:52 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 13:40:34 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 07:23:56 -0400,
wrote:

If that's your evaluation, give Bush an "F," because he stated several
times he just wasn't that interested in running down Osama.

I really think this was just to do what I have been saying we should
be doing all along, lull OBL into a bit of complacency so we can catch
up to him,

Remember my squirrel hunting analogy. When you want to hunt squirrels
you sit quietly by a tree and ignore them until they get comfortable
enough to come out and run around. If you are looking for them you
will seldom see them

Note we are talking about wild squirrels, not the ones in your bird
feeder. Even those would get pretty hard to find if you started
shooting at them.


Osama apparently moved to his palatial estate in 2005 or 2006, during
the Bush Admin, when it became apparent the Bush Admin was not looking
for him.

... where we found him. That was my point. If he was still running
around in the mountains or slipped off into Somalia or Yemen we may
never have found him. Our best chance was if he settled down somewhere
and let his guard down. Personally I think this would have worked out
faster if we had not invaded Afghanistan. He may have become less
guarded and made the critical mistake sooner.

Wow... so basically you're claiming Bush's incompetence was really
just brilliance hiding. Talk about delusional!

I have said Bush's invasions were all mistakes but thanks for trying
to put words in my mouth.

You're claiming that because of Bush's incompetence, we got OBL. Thus,
Bush must be brilliant and playing chess like Big Blue.

Where should the credit go?
 

On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:14:51 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2011 09:18:52 -0700, wrote:

All
this nonsense about OBL as though his capture is going to solve all
the problems of terrorism is astounding.

I don't have to mine many of your posts to see you saying OBL was the
key to stopping terrorism (trying to justify our crusade in
Afghanistan).

BS. I never said that. Show us.