I hate to be a Debby Downer, but this has been starting to bother me. The man who's face represents the face of Terrorism is finally dead... but at what cost? The USA has spent billions on two wars, countless men and women have sacrificed themselves (on both sides whether you agree with them or not it still adds to the body count), the government has attained more power to protect national security, and an oil rich soon to be nuclear region has begun to destabilize. This wont change anything in the long run, if anything, Osama is now a marter and will be more powerful as a recruiting tool. How many future attacks will be attempted as a result of his death for the next 50 years? Justice has been served? What about all the people the US and other nations killed in combat operation? Does the family of those people now have the right to seek justice?
Anyone should have rejected that deal. It was awful.
Only if you're an idealistic ******** or a homicidal maniac.
Bush was, of course, both.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
And your alternative response to the man responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent lives on US soil would have been...... ?
I never suggested there was an alternative nor is that the point of this thread. This is to specifically analyze the cost that his death took and putting it into perspective. I'm sure everyone is really happy he's dead, but don't let the emotions blind you.
Only if you're an idealistic ******** or a homicidal maniac.
Bush was, of course, both.
The negotiations required the Taliban to choose the country and court for the trial. You are either being naive or ignorent in thinking that's a fair trade.
If you don't remember, the US was quite busy bombing people at the time. The Taliban weren't too keen on being bombed so a satisfactory compromise would've been reachable.
That would never have flown with the American public at that time. A third party country? After we had just had four airliners flown into our buildings killing 3000+ of our citizens? Never in a million years. Hindsight is 20/20 but at that moment in time that offer was impossible to take.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig by Sash of deviantART FEAR THE SPEAR ARSENAL F.C.
USA
I hate to be a Debby Downer, but this has been starting to bother me. The man who's face represents the face of Terrorism is finally dead... but at what cost?
At no additional cost.
The USA has spent billions on two wars, countless men and women have sacrificed themselves (on both sides whether you agree with them or not it still adds to the body count), the government has attained more power to protect national security, and an oil rich soon to be nuclear region has begun to destabilize.
We would have spent this money given Osama was on one of the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers. The Afghan War was never simply just about Osama. There was this overseas government knowingly harboring terrorists to attack the United States.
This wont change anything in the long run, if anything, Osama is now a marter and will be more powerful as a recruiting tool. How many future attacks will be attempted as a result of his death for the next 50 years?
The same as before when Osama was still alive. I think the breaking point for Islamic extremists was when the United States invaded Iraq. The terrorists already have had all their cards on the table for a very long time.
If you don't remember, the US was quite busy bombing people at the time. The Taliban weren't too keen on being bombed so a satisfactory compromise would've been reachable.
Afghanistan was basically asking the United States to attack it. The fact that it was willfully harboring terrorists is a very crucial point. It wasn't in their place to negotiate with the United States and the toppling of the Taliban was much more realistically important for US safety than the calm, civil arrest and trial of Osama bin Laden.
If you don't remember, the US was quite busy bombing people at the time. The Taliban weren't too keen on being bombed so a satisfactory compromise would've been reachable.
That's stupid. If they really wanted to stop the bombing they would not harbor him, and they would not negotiate a more favorable trial for him. They chose to continue to harbor him instead of serving the needs of their people at that time - and turing the situation into a "Bush just wanted to kill people" is simply ignoring that reality.
If you don't remember, the US was quite busy bombing people at the time. The Taliban weren't too keen on being bombed so a satisfactory compromise would've been reachable.
No, we had the right to deal with osama through our own actions, not in some third party court. When was the last time the US asked the UN courts to handle something that we wanted to handle?
Hm ok, how many of US soldiers died in Afghanistan? Dont know?
Ok according to WIKI (which might be not the most reliable source of information)
It is 1900 dead soldiers
then 2600 US civilian supliers
5500 Afghanistan ppl
then you have more than 15 000 injured and
20 000 casualities on Al-Káida and Taliban side.
11th september 2001 died 2749 civilians and 350 firemen.
OK tell me, who gave you the right to deal with osama through your own actions? Your avenging your death civilians, fine, i get it, but with deaths of US soldiers? With deahts of NATO soldiers? I think I can blame US for deaht of 2 our soldiers. And you even killed more civilians in this war. Not only in Afghanistan but also in Iraq.
Are you trolling?? Why can you blame the U.S. for the deaths of NATO soldiers?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig by Sash of deviantART FEAR THE SPEAR ARSENAL F.C.
USA
Because, in my opininon, if Bush accepted that offer, the war would end years ago, this means less killed soldiers including those from other countries including Great Britain, France, Germany...
And I explained that at that point in time, the American public would have been furious if we negotiated with the Taliban to allow Osama to be handed to a third party country and tried in courts other than our own. Agreeing to that proposal was impossible for the Bush administration in the context of the recent events. And saying that "OMG 458937497345 people died because he didn't accept that proposal!!!!" is naive. No one could have possibly known it would take this long to capture/kill him. Hence, "hindsight is 20/20".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig by Sash of deviantART FEAR THE SPEAR ARSENAL F.C.
USA
You are right, no one could known that finding one guy in a country full of mountains will take that long (I´m bit sarcastic but youre right, with all those satelites and other stuff it didnt seem that difficult)
It is an incredibly difficult task to find one man in a third world region with people very loyal to his cause protecting him. It doesn't surprise me that it took this long, but once again.. at that time there was no way anyone could have guessed how long it would take.
Am I naive? Yes.
Tell me please, what would happen, if bush had accepted this proposal? The only one thing I can see is he will not get elected in next votings
This is impossible for me to answer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig by Sash of deviantART FEAR THE SPEAR ARSENAL F.C.
USA
Did you read my post? I presented the costs. At the end of the day, we decided to pursue him and that came at a cost. The point of this thread is to think of all the costs associated with this man. It's quite staggering when you think that one man caused so much cost on all sides. You also failed to add the potential cost of retaliation against the US and what the US would do in response.
I would just like to point out that the taliban is an organization. They are not an independent country. As such what makes you think they have any right whatsoever to negotiate with the United States? There was a message to be sent and as much as the lighter-hearted folks hate it it has to be done. Countries that don't really care for us have to understand that you don't have to love us but you should act according to certain standards. And if your country wants to harbor international terrorists we WILL WITHOUT QUESTION come in there and get them if you do not cooperate. Terrorism is atrocious enough as it is. It's ten times worse when they have countries sponsoring them to help them attain the things they need to kill innocents. I point that out because terrorists almost always go for soft targets where they can hurt a lot of people without having to fight for it. Finally, I would like to say that the death of this particular scumbag was not the only objective for our forces oversees. When you ask if they died for something trivial I don't think you really understand the mindset of most soldiers. They died for their country. They died protecting the American way of life man. They died for us. I doubt they thought that wasn't enough. Don't trivialize their sacrifice acting like it wasn't enough. We should all thank the brave men and women who fight for this country. Even if you are not sure if you believe in the reason for military action at the time remember that for them it's always about freedom.
Hey, Amadi, should I link Melete to some of the stuff you've said in the past on the subject of US foreign policy and, just to pick another topic at random, Nazi Germany, so he knows what sort of stuff to expect from you?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
/Discuss
Indianapolis Regionals 2009 (Standard)
Worldwake Gameday (Limited)
See my alters here: http://s132.photobucket.com/albums/q16/jimmy2do/Cards/
Only if you're an idealistic ******** or a homicidal maniac.
Bush was, of course, both.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I never suggested there was an alternative nor is that the point of this thread. This is to specifically analyze the cost that his death took and putting it into perspective. I'm sure everyone is really happy he's dead, but don't let the emotions blind you.
The negotiations required the Taliban to choose the country and court for the trial. You are either being naive or ignorent in thinking that's a fair trade.
Sig by Sash of deviantART
FEAR THE SPEAR
ARSENAL F.C.
USA
We would have spent this money given Osama was on one of the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers. The Afghan War was never simply just about Osama. There was this overseas government knowingly harboring terrorists to attack the United States.
The same as before when Osama was still alive. I think the breaking point for Islamic extremists was when the United States invaded Iraq. The terrorists already have had all their cards on the table for a very long time.
Afghanistan was basically asking the United States to attack it. The fact that it was willfully harboring terrorists is a very crucial point. It wasn't in their place to negotiate with the United States and the toppling of the Taliban was much more realistically important for US safety than the calm, civil arrest and trial of Osama bin Laden.
No, we had the right to deal with osama through our own actions, not in some third party court. When was the last time the US asked the UN courts to handle something that we wanted to handle?
Legacy:WUBG Jace Rock
Trade thread
Sig by: heroes of the plane studios
You need to reread my post.
Are you trolling?? Why can you blame the U.S. for the deaths of NATO soldiers?
Sig by Sash of deviantART
FEAR THE SPEAR
ARSENAL F.C.
USA
Sig by Sash of deviantART
FEAR THE SPEAR
ARSENAL F.C.
USA
This is impossible for me to answer.
Sig by Sash of deviantART
FEAR THE SPEAR
ARSENAL F.C.
USA
Did you read my post? I presented the costs. At the end of the day, we decided to pursue him and that came at a cost. The point of this thread is to think of all the costs associated with this man. It's quite staggering when you think that one man caused so much cost on all sides. You also failed to add the potential cost of retaliation against the US and what the US would do in response.
A strong, well supported argument.
EDH:
UBGThe MimeoplasmUBG
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=489747
Hey, Amadi, should I link Melete to some of the stuff you've said in the past on the subject of US foreign policy and, just to pick another topic at random, Nazi Germany, so he knows what sort of stuff to expect from you?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.