Online Now 1908

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

On this Board 98
Record: 3425 (1/27/2013)

Online now 2078
Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Fantasy Sports Forum

For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion

Test/Feedback Forum

Reply

Obama expands his "kill list"

  • GRR Spartan said...

    Looky looky looky Another war wimp shooting his face off.

    I have never been against hunting down and killing Al Qaida leadership. You'll never find a thread that said anything else.

    What I have always been against is committing 100,000 plus troops and over 25,000 civilian contractors to support them to combat theaters while 1st looking for WMD's that were never there and then nation building.

    But compound the brave (as long as he's at a keyboard 6000 mles away safe at home) supported the WMD hunt and nation building. If Bush2's people including those in the Pentagon would have been able to be decisive Osama bin Laden would have died in a truck caravan attempting to bug out of Afghanistan but someone had feet of clay and by the time it was being considered he was hiding in the mountain range between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    Maybe compound is in the funeral business, has a contract to build military coffins or just likes to see people in great numbers put their ass on the line so he can wave a flag, support the troops and "thank them for their service". Of course we know compound and others here support the troops because they never have to be one of the troops.

    compound has never explained why he thinks its better to play by the Al Qaida rules in the field rather than sending in 12-15 special forces via helicopter or short landing prop planes, killing the Al Qaida cell members, recovering their maps, cell numbers and lists of names to kill other Al Qaida for more hunting.

    compound has never explained why its better to have 1000's of troops in harms way seeking needles in haystacks rather than locating Al Qaida leadership with intel and cell phone triangulation and taking them out with UMA's.

    He's never explained why he thinks its better to have 100 troops at a time in an outpost being sitting ducks rather than sending out US snipers and blowing the heads off their snipers and blowing the heads off people trying to bury IED's or mines in roads.

    Bush2 chose to import all those prisoners to Cuba without a plan except he knew in a few years it would be someone elses problem. When President Obama tried to close the camp the GOP did a 180 and went for supporting Bush2 and McCain in closing the camp to calling Obama weak on terror. Refresh my memory, how many trials did the Bush2 people have for the prisoners in Cuba?

    Now President Obama ordered the mission to get rid of bin Laden (you remember the guy Bush2 said didn't matter) and use UMA's and special forces to put what's left of Al Qaida's shrinking leadership into hiding while you are sobbing like a kid seeing Old Yeller for the first time.

    Stick to caring about Amish dairy farmers. Something you might know about since you can safely visit one of their farms.

    Can you compress this to one or two paranoid rants please.....TIA

    Compound 2

  • Compound 2 said...

    Can you compress this to one or two paranoid rants please.....TIA

    Don't like getting seeing your simplistic world and thought process get blown to bits like an Al Qaida snipers head do you?

    Stick with Amish dairy farmers compound.

    Better be careful what you attribute to me and others. You have a track record of screwing that up too.

    GRR Spartan ●

  • GRR Spartan said...

    Don't like getting seeing your simplistic world and thought process get blown to bits like an Al Qaida snipers head do you?

    Yes, that's precisely it. I can't handle how completely and totally you shredded my argument. You're too good.

    Compound 2

  • GRR Spartan said...

    I don't think killing civilians is a good idea but I am also cognizant of the fact that the people we are going after have no compunction about shielding themselves with civilians.

    My baby-body-armor premise was ridiculous on its face, I'll grant that, but comments like this lead me to feel that it's not an unfair analogy. You seem to be asserting that, because al-Qaeda shields or hides themselves among civilians, that the US should continue to disregard the lives of those civilians in pursuit of al-Qaeda, and further, that everyone in the middle east is living in some tribal village where all members meet and discuss whether or not to harbor al-Qaeda. This is stupid on many levels. First, I'd like some evidence that these villages are organized in the way you assert, and I'm going to need something better than an anecdote from some distant relation or acquaintance, please. Second, if there are, in fact, village elders, and members of al-Qaeda do, in fact, notify those elders of their presence, what benefit would the village elders or the al-Qaeda members receive from notifying every resident of a given village? The more people that are aware of al-Qaeda presence, the more people that can give them up.

    Lastly, I'll point out that, because children and infants are just as susceptible to death-by-drone as anyone else, you're condemning them as conspirators as well, and callously supporting a policy of military action that costs them their lives.

    http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay.htm

    iCameron

  • iCameron said...

    My baby-body-armor premise was ridiculous on its face, I'll grant that, but comments like this lead me to feel that it's not an unfair analogy. You seem to be asserting that, because al-Qaeda shields or hides themselves among civilians, that the US should continue to disregard the lives of those civilians in pursuit of al-Qaeda, and further, that everyone in the middle east is living in some tribal village where all members meet and discuss whether or not to harbor al-Qaeda. This is stupid on many levels. First, I'd like some evidence that these villages are organized in the way you assert, and I'm going to need something better than an anecdote from some distant relation or acquaintance, please. Second, if there are, in fact, village elders, and members of al-Qaeda do, in fact, notify those elders of their presence, what benefit would the village elders or the al-Qaeda members receive from notifying every resident of a given village? The more people that are aware of al-Qaeda presence, the more people that can give them up.

    Lastly, I'll point out that, because children and infants are just as susceptible to death-by-drone as anyone else, you're condemning them as conspirators as well, and callously supporting a policy of military action that costs them their lives.

    It's a sad fact of a nasty war. If 5 innocent civilians have to die in order for 300 million to have the safety they deserve as innocent civilians then so be it. I'll mourn their loss like I would any time a decent human being meets an untimely end. However the targets in the midst of these people are actively seeking the deaths of non military targets.

    "Losing Benenoch is a mortal blow from which this program can't recover"-T-Pain

    Rogue Leader

  • Rogue Leader said...

    It's a sad fact of a nasty war. If 5 innocent civilians have to die in order for 300 million to have the safety they deserve as innocent civilians then so be it. I'll mourn their loss like I would any time a decent human being meets an untimely end. However the targets in the midst of these people are actively seeking the deaths of non military targets.

    If the total was only 5, I might agree with you.

    http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay.htm

    iCameron

  • Rogue Leader said...

    It's a sad fact of a nasty war. If 5 innocent civilians have to die in order for 300 million to have the safety they deserve as innocent civilians then so be it. I'll mourn their loss like I would any time a decent human being meets an untimely end. However the targets in the midst of these people are actively seeking the deaths of non military targets.

    Every time we kill civilians we're creating more enemies than we take out. That's the point that makes your premise a false choice. If it were actually making us safer perhaps you could make a compelling argument that the inevitable civilian deaths are justified. When you add that factor in, no way.

    signature image signature image

    Yo Teach

  • Cosmo_Kramer said...

    I'm not a conservative for the umpteenth time.

    Some people, many on this very board, can only view the world in this way.

    It' s been programmed into them by their television since birth.

    This post was edited by I Am That I Am on 5/30/2012 at 4:02 PM

    I Am That I Am

  • GRR Spartan said...

    I see it as don't hide known Al Qaida people and your hose/cave won't get blown up with you and/or your children in it.

    Wasn't that pretty much our policy in Vietnam?

    'Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable' - President John F. Kennedy

    WixomSpartan

  • iCameron said...

    "The airstrike that killed al-Taifi and another al Qaeda militant took place Sunday in Kunar's Watahpur district, the coalition said. A follow-on assessment of the area determined that no civilians were harmed, it said."

    No civilian deaths means that this particular instance is okay by me. But I don't like the trend of drone attacks (not that I have a problem with drones necessarily, just the way they are often used) and ignoring due process that the Obama administration has pursued so vigorously.

    Terror and terrorism are concepts that are divorced from any individual, group, or country, so it doesn't seem possible to me to ever win a war on terror and completely eradicate terrorism. And I'm decidedly NOT a fan of perpetual war. When all is said and done, I think the war on terror will end up being more trouble than it was worth. What I mean by this is that the human cost (both of our soldiers and the civilians in the region) and the financial cost both outweigh any damage al-Qaeda could ever have inflicted on the US on their own. The issue of propping up/further supporting the military industrial complex, and the concurrent (and, in my opinion, not entirely unrelated) increasing militarization of our domestic police forces are harder to quantify, but also hugely damaging to our way of life.

    Good post. It really is a difficult issue to know what is the 'right' thing to do. One thing for sure...your perspective changes when you occupy the Oval Office. It's common for candidates to say 'stay out of other nations' business', etc etc. because that's how most Americans feel. Once elected President, however, it seems all politicians take the same approach: military force against any and all perceived threats.

    'Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable' - President John F. Kennedy

    WixomSpartan

  • I Am That I Am said...

    Some people, many on this very board, can only view the world in this way.

    It' s been programmed into them by their television since birth.

    Ironically, this is about the only thread on Wells where posters on different sides are agreeing or at least acknowledging that it's complicated.

    John Dewey

  • WixomSpartan said...

    Wasn't that pretty much our policy in Vietnam?

    No unless you want to consider carpet spraying of Agent Orange, carpet bombing using napalm or the MaiLai massacre that was done by US regular Army tactical tight target.

    You really need to read more books .
    Everything from Halberstam's Making of a Quagmire to Sheehan's A Bright and Shining Lie.

    GRR Spartan ●

  • GRR Spartan said...

    No unless you want to consider carpet spraying of Agent Orange, carpet bombing using napalm or the MaiLai massacre that was done by US regular Army tactical tight target.

    You really need to read more books . Everything from Halberstam's Making of a Quagmire to Sheehan's A Bright and Shining Lie.

    Do those books say it's OK for a country's leader to have a kill list?

    TravelinMan

  • Rogue Leader said...

    It's a sad fact of a nasty war. If 5 innocent civilians have to die in order for 300 million to have the safety they deserve as innocent civilians then so be it. I'll mourn their loss like I would any time a decent human being meets an untimely end. However the targets in the midst of these people are actively seeking the deaths of non military targets.

    Easy to brush it aside as a "sad fact" when it isn't your five relatives.

    You can't merely mourn their loss when your hand had a role in it. If 3000 people dying breaks your fragile illusion of security, does a drone strike that splattered your five relatives make you forgive and forget or want to head over to the nearest al Qaeda training center and sign up to go to war?

    Islamic culture embraces a high level of intolerance. The proper way to deal is to contain and encourage reform while interfering in a controlled and purposeful manner, not by handing over carte blanche authority to blow people up and calling them terrorists after the fact like we're already in some Orwellian nightmare.

    Foxbat

  • John Dewey said...

    Ironically, this is about the only thread on Wells where posters on different sides are agreeing or at least acknowledging that it's complicated.

    This is the thread where you find great insight on who truly thinks before believing, who is a mindless partisan shill, and who's merely here to stir the pot and point out the hypocrisy. If Bush had escalated drone warfare to such a level there would be aneurysms abound.

    Foxbat

  • Foxbat said...

    This is the thread where you find great insight on who truly thinks before believing, who is a mindless partisan shill, and who's merely here to stir the pot and point out the hypocrisy. If Bush had escalated drone warfare to such a level there would be aneurysms abound.

    In my case I would have been very happy to see the Bush2 administration ramp up the use of UMA's to eviscerate Al Qaida leadership and decrease troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan but that was not the way they chose to engage the enemy.

    I agree with Rogue Leader about the long memories of Islamic societies and tribal based societies.

    However given the track record of Al Qaida being willing to wait years between attacks, the more confusion you can cause by killing their leadership and screwing with their finances the longer we can avoid another attack.

    GRR Spartan ●

  • GRR Spartan said...

    No unless you want to consider carpet spraying of Agent Orange, carpet bombing using napalm or the MaiLai massacre that was done by US regular Army tactical tight target.

    You really need to read more books . Everything from Halberstam's Making of a Quagmire to Sheehan's A Bright and Shining Lie.

    Maybe your post is missing some words, but didn't the U.S. actually DO all of those things you listed? And if we did, shouldn't you have answered 'yes'?

    'Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable' - President John F. Kennedy

    WixomSpartan

  • GRR, where does the President get the authority to kill American civilians without a trial? How is what he is doing not a crime?

    Compound 2

  • WixomSpartan said...

    Maybe your post is missing some words, but didn't the U.S. actually DO all of those things you listed? And if we did, shouldn't you have answered 'yes'?

    Not if we are talking about isolated specific target warfare.

    Are you really that uniformed of the differences in military tactics?

    UMA = specific target known individual at a specific place

    carpet bombing = just toss 100's of gallons of napalm over the countryside and maybe we stop enemy progress

    GRR Spartan ●

  • Compound 2 said...

    GRR, where does the President get the authority to kill American civilians without a trial? How is what he is doing not a crime?

    The AG gave an opinion that its okay. That's fine by me. That is the way the game is played.

    Besides I didn't ever read where you were so concerned you flew to Yeman to find the guy and take him home to live with you.

    Because you aren't some constitutional badass. You think you are clever. You aren't. You are just another big talker.

    GRR Spartan ●

  • GRR Spartan said...

    The AG gave an opinion that its okay. That's fine by me. That is the way the game is played.

    Besides I didn't ever read where you were so concerned you flew to Yeman to find the guy and take him home to live with you.

    Because you aren't some constitutional badass. You think you are clever. You aren't. You are just another big talker.

    Ok, so the way our government works is that the attorney general (who is appointed by the President) determines at his sole discretion what authority the President has? This is your understanding of how our government functions?

    Compound 2

  • Compound 2 said...

    Ok, so the way our government works is that the attorney general (who is appointed by the President) determines at his sole discretion what authority the President has? This is your understanding of how our government functions?

    It has worked that way for every administration since at least 1900 and probably before that.

    Anyone who reads US government history knows that but its not surprising you missed it since you only read things that are spoon fed to you by "conservative web sites.

    I didn't know you were such a fan of US born Al Qaida clerics.

    Next time you see one in the news have them, move to your home.

    GRR Spartan ●

  • GRR Spartan said...

    It has worked that way for every administration since at least 1900 and probably before that.

    Anyone who reads US government history knows that but its not surprising you missed it since you only read things that are spoon fed to you by "conservative web sites.

    I didn't know you were such a fan of US born Al Qaida clerics.

    Next time you see one in the news have them, move to your home.

    If this is how it works then why does the President take an oath to uphold the constitution? According to you, he should take an oath to honor what Eric Holder says.

    You continue to amaze the board with your wisdom and understanding of how our government works.

    Compound 2

  • GRR Spartan said...

    The AG gave an opinion that its okay. That's fine by me. That is the way the game is played.

    Did you actually hear him explain his opinion? Because the explanation was fucking retarded, and if you're fine with it, so are you. I enjoyed Stephen Colbert's take on the matter.

    Colbert Eviscerates Administration Flouting the Constitution:

    http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/825801/colbert_eviscerates_administration_flouting_the_constitution%3A_%22due_process_is_a_process_that_you_do!%22/

    www.alternet.org

    http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay.htm

    iCameron

  • I don't see you hurrying down to a recruiting office to go fight in Afghanistan so we don't use those evil UMA's. As a matter of fact I don't see any poster here wanting to enlist so we can have a full out hand to hand combat force to go after Al Qaida leadership.

    This administration has to walk a fine line between getting as many troops out of harm's way through use of advanced military technology, eliminating AlQaida leadership and not being percieved of being weak on defense (which is still happening)

    I'm not retarded but I am not some pie in the sky person thinking if only we don't do anything to anger our nation's enemies it will be okay. We (US) tried to downplay AL Qaida for a decade with both the Clinton and Bush2 administrations. We didn't want to offend the Saudi's. Then we had 9-11-01 followed by an invasion/occupation of two countries and did little but send home 4000 US dead and over 10,000 wounded. Bush2 said binLaden didn't matter.

    Obama said he did and we used everything we could use to get him and a lot of data he had with him. Are you going to cry over the US invading Pakistani airspace too?

    Now the Saudi's are seeing they are also a target of Al Qaida and are helping the US.

    When Obama was elected in 2008 I was one of the few who were warning people like myself who voted for him that he was a lot more practical, pragmatic than idealist. He wasn't the devil from the left folks still want to paint him as either.

    President Obama is a pragmatist who made a decision to wipe out Al Qaida from the top down and use surgical strikes with special forces and UMA's to do it.

    If you disagree vote for Mitt Romney and see how he respects the constitution. I know what we are getting with Obama and I like the results pertaining to his use of UMA's against Al Qaida targets.

    GRR Spartan ●

Michigan State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports