| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Where should the credit go?
On 05/05/2011 1:00 PM, 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On Thu, 05 May 2011 14:04:53 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2011 15:57:05 -0400, wrote: wrote: I am happy that Obama has repealed the flawed Carter policy of not targeting people for assassination.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. He had 9.5 years on the 9/11 charges. Good enough? I thinks so. -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. Take a look at ANY country, more debt more problems. So why do we allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial? |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where should the credit go?
On 05/05/2011 1:00 PM, 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. If it were you son looking Osama in the eye, and Osama pull a hand into hidden view -- Would you want your son to chance it that Osama wasn't going for a grenade, bomb or firearm? -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. Take a look at ANY country, more debt more problems. So why do we allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial? |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where should the credit go?
In article ,
says... On 05/05/2011 1:00 PM, 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. If it were you son looking Osama in the eye, and Osama pull a hand into hidden view -- Would you want your son to chance it that Osama wasn't going for a grenade, bomb or firearm? The way they are trained, they could have taken him alive.. Period. It was a hit, pure and simple. There is no way they were gonna' let Osama tell the world about the co-operation he was getting from all the countries involved... -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where should the credit go?
I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , says... On 05/05/2011 1:00 PM, 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. If it were you son looking Osama in the eye, and Osama pull a hand into hidden view -- Would you want your son to chance it that Osama wasn't going for a grenade, bomb or firearm? The way they are trained, they could have taken him alive.. Period. It was a hit, pure and simple. There is no way they were gonna' let Osama tell the world about the co-operation he was getting from all the countries involved... I find it humorous that Canuck and Snotty, two of the three most ignorant conspiracy theorists on rec.boats, in this and in other posts, have yet more conspiracies. Since I wasn't in the room and videos haven't been shown, I don't know what happened immediately before Osama was shot dead. My *hope* was that he was indeed first given an opportunity to surrender. As I have stated previously, it wouldn't bother me to learn he was shot while resisting capture/arrest. |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where should the credit go?
On 06/05/2011 4:22 AM, Harryk wrote:
I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On 05/05/2011 1:00 PM, 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. If it were you son looking Osama in the eye, and Osama pull a hand into hidden view -- Would you want your son to chance it that Osama wasn't going for a grenade, bomb or firearm? The way they are trained, they could have taken him alive.. Period. It was a hit, pure and simple. There is no way they were gonna' let Osama tell the world about the co-operation he was getting from all the countries involved... I find it humorous that Canuck and Snotty, two of the three most ignorant conspiracy theorists on rec.boats, in this and in other posts, have yet more conspiracies. Since I wasn't in the room and videos haven't been shown, I don't know what happened immediately before Osama was shot dead. My *hope* was that he was indeed first given an opportunity to surrender. As I have stated previously, it wouldn't bother me to learn he was shot while resisting capture/arrest. Part of me believe many of the conspiracy types work for the government. The idea is to discredit the conspiracy theorists by exaggerating the claims to the level of stupidity, when in fact some truth to it may exist. I agree with government, 9/11 happened as they say. But I also believe they know more than they are letting on in the subsequent events. I also believe the timing of Osama's death is quite well timed. Gadhafi assassination attempt for example, innocent kids murdered and public sediment against the practice going fast against USA, Obama needed to deflect the blame fast so he played the Osama card. I do not believe the time of Osama's death was a coincidence one single bit. It became in Obama's self interest to be the right time to get Osama. Take John Wheeler and Ashley Turton. Coincidence? To me Coincidence means you just can't explain why. Not much of anything is truly a coincidence. Back to Gadhafi, the motives in assassinating him are not pure as in an attach on the USA like 9/11. They are in fact quite different and are of greed and control based. Real reasons US-NATO-UN-IMF-France want Gadadfi... - low debt Central Bank of Libya not IMF friendly. - oil - Gadhafi a supported of a United African state, funded it. Gbadbo of Ivory Coast also supported it. Bad for colonialism. - colonial interest, Gadafi like Gbagbo said they might nationalize French interests (2010). Libya rebels are less than 1% usually unemployed young males of the population and do not have the support of the people at large. They are a minority militant rebels with al Quada affiliations disrupting a country. Would not be much different if a 20,000 band of citizens disrupted the USA really. As this makes it clearly a civil issue and represents zero threat to other countries. So in my opinion, with what we know, and unless homes fly with kids in them, USA is in clear violation of law in these multiple assassination attempts in Libya. But we know the UN-IMF is behind it so good luck seeing justice. -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. Take a look at ANY country, more debt more problems. So why do we allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial? |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where should the credit go?
In article ,
says... On Fri, 06 May 2011 06:22:25 -0400, Harryk wrote: I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On 05/05/2011 1:00 PM, 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. If it were you son looking Osama in the eye, and Osama pull a hand into hidden view -- Would you want your son to chance it that Osama wasn't going for a grenade, bomb or firearm? The way they are trained, they could have taken him alive.. Period. It was a hit, pure and simple. There is no way they were gonna' let Osama tell the world about the co-operation he was getting from all the countries involved... I find it humorous that Canuck and Snotty, two of the three most ignorant conspiracy theorists on rec.boats, in this and in other posts, have yet more conspiracies. Since I wasn't in the room and videos haven't been shown, I don't know what happened immediately before Osama was shot dead. My *hope* was that he was indeed first given an opportunity to surrender. As I have stated previously, it wouldn't bother me to learn he was shot while resisting capture/arrest. NBC has an unnamed white house official calling this a kill mission. I think it is clear they were not looking for a prisoner. Earlier today Savannah Guthrie quoted an unnamed White House official commenting on the rising criticism of how bin Laden was killed, who said "they weren?t raiding a girl scout troop looking for overdue library books. They were on a kill mission for Osama bin Laden." I'm sure they got more from the computers they took than anything OBL would tell them, no matter how much water they splashed in his face. The way these guys are trained they could have taken him alive, period. Harry and the rest of the hypocrites here just can't admit it was a kill mission, it doesn't fit their agenda... I still think it would have been better to "splash him in the face" a few times. I am sure there was stuff in his head that was not on disk. Most likely the names of the US, UN, and Pakistani contacts that were protecting him there... -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where should the credit go?
|
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where should the credit go?
On 06/05/2011 4:01 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , says... On 05/05/2011 1:00 PM, 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. If it were you son looking Osama in the eye, and Osama pull a hand into hidden view -- Would you want your son to chance it that Osama wasn't going for a grenade, bomb or firearm? The way they are trained, they could have taken him alive.. Period. It was a hit, pure and simple. There is no way they were gonna' let Osama tell the world about the co-operation he was getting from all the countries involved... I agree. But with the self admission, warrants and indictments, save the cost of a trial. Mind you solitaire in Gitmo for life does have appeal. But still, all considering, great kill. -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. Take a look at ANY country, more debt more problems. So why do we allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial? |
|
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Credit Score | General | |||
| What credit crunch? | General | |||
| What Credit crunch | General | |||
| Where Credit Is Due | ASA | |||
Hybrid Mode
