Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Osama Bin Laden is Dead.


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
148 replies to this topic

#81 trzy   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Posted 02 May 2011 - 02:20 PM


Iraq = Started in 1990 with Iraq's Kuwait invasion, repulsion and ceasefire, decade of no-fly with a record of infractions. Followed up by UN inspection mandates requiring immediate and unconditional access to particular sites.

Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was slant drilling in Iraq territory and wouldn't stop after Iraq repeated demands for Kuwait to stop.


With that kind of logic, you could have tried a bit and justified the overthrow of Iran's socialist leader.
----Bart

Sponsor:

#82 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 02 May 2011 - 02:34 PM

Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was slant drilling in Iraq territory and wouldn't stop after Iraq repeated demands for Kuwait to stop.


Iraq invaded Kuwait because it was in debt and Kuwait was driving down the price of oil. Independent firms not related to either Kuwait or Iraq dismissed the claims of slant drilling as a weak excuse to take military action.

#83 trzy   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Posted 02 May 2011 - 02:44 PM

Taiwan's animators do it again ;)
----Bart

#84 Fiddler   Members   -  Reputation: 839

Posted 02 May 2011 - 02:48 PM


Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was slant drilling in Iraq territory and wouldn't stop after Iraq repeated demands for Kuwait to stop.


Iraq invaded Kuwait because it was in debt and Kuwait was driving down the price of oil. Independent firms not related to either Kuwait or Iraq dismissed the claims of slant drilling as a weak excuse to take military action.


Was it weaker than the false testimonies, propaganda and lies that led to the second Iraq invasion?


our Western value system trumps others when we find ourselves the targets of violence by opposing ideologues

Opposing ideologies that Reagan and Carter directly funded and armed. So much for your so-called moral superiority.


[OpenTK: C# OpenGL 4.4, OpenGL ES 3.0 and OpenAL 1.1. Now with Linux/KMS support!]


#85 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 02 May 2011 - 02:59 PM

Was it weaker than the false testimonies, propaganda and lies that led to the second Iraq invasion?

Which of the UN resolutions that were not followed would you consider a lie? I need to know the answer to that question before any reasonable response can be made.

#86 trzy   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Posted 02 May 2011 - 03:01 PM

Was it weaker than the false testimonies, propaganda and lies that led to the second Iraq invasion?


This thread was about Bin Laden, which has more to do with Afghanistan and Pakistan. I disagreed with Iraq but am saddened to see that many self-proclaimed peace-lovers are gung-ho about intervention in Libya. So much for your so-called moral superiority.

our Western value system trumps others when we find ourselves the targets of violence by opposing ideologues

Opposing ideologies that Reagan and Carter directly funded and armed. So much for your so-called moral superiority.


Between supporting Muslim freedom fighters (USA) and stabbing former allies in the back, and then trying to construct a phony narrative of Western Crusaders murdering Muslims (Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and yourself), I'd say the USA clearly possesses moral superiority in what is obviously a very messy situation.

Score another one for the good guys! *fist pump*
----Bart

#87 Antheus   Members   -  Reputation: 2397

Posted 02 May 2011 - 03:08 PM

Between supporting Muslim freedom fighters (USA) and stabbing former allies in the back, and then trying to construct a phony narrative of Western Crusaders murdering Muslims (Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and yourself), I'd say the USA clearly possesses moral superiority in what is obviously a very messy situation.


That is true. Oil is messy.

But oil must flow. So ends justify the means.

#88 trzy   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Posted 02 May 2011 - 03:15 PM

That is true. Oil is messy.


Yes.

But I hope you are aware that there is no oil in Afghanistan.

But oil must flow. So ends justify the means.


Sort of. Involvement in the middle east ultimately boils down to oil and national interest (but then again, so does everyone's involvement anywhere). But reality is a bit more complex. America's benign imperialism is not solely motivated by predatory resource extraction. The US is not benefiting from OPEC manipulating oil prices or the Saudis bankrolling anti-American terrorists, now are we? So perhaps the narrative is more complex.
----Bart

#89 Fiddler   Members   -  Reputation: 839

Posted 02 May 2011 - 03:18 PM


Was it weaker than the false testimonies, propaganda and lies that led to the second Iraq invasion?

Which of the UN resolutions that were not followed would you consider a lie? I need to know the answer to that question before any reasonable response can be made.

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." George W. Bush, 19 March 2003

No such weapons were ever found either by the UN inspectors or the US occupation forces. A war that cost an est. 3 trillion dollars (source), resulted in somewhere between ~100000 to 1000000 casualties, including coalition forces (source).

Is there really anything more that needs to be said?

[OpenTK: C# OpenGL 4.4, OpenGL ES 3.0 and OpenAL 1.1. Now with Linux/KMS support!]


#90 Fiddler   Members   -  Reputation: 839

Posted 02 May 2011 - 03:20 PM


That is true. Oil is messy.


Yes.

But I hope you are aware that there is no oil in Afghanistan.


Your information is outdated.



[OpenTK: C# OpenGL 4.4, OpenGL ES 3.0 and OpenAL 1.1. Now with Linux/KMS support!]


#91 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 02 May 2011 - 03:23 PM


Which of the UN resolutions that were not followed would you consider a lie? I need to know the answer to that question before any reasonable response can be made.

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." George W. Bush, 19 March 2003

No such weapons were ever found either by the UN inspectors or the US occupation forces. A war that cost an est. 3 trillion dollars (source), resulted in somewhere between ~100000 to 1000000 casualties, including coalition forces (source).

Is there really anything more that needs to be said?

That is not the question that I asked. Which of the UN resolutions do you consider a lie?

#92 trzy   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Posted 02 May 2011 - 03:24 PM

Your information is outdated.


From the article:

In 2007 China's top integrated copper producer, Jiangxi Copper Co and China Metallurgical Group Corp, became the first major investor in Afghanistan.


The other beneficiary of our invasion may end up being India (a good thing for us, in the long run, because it will put Pakistan in a deadly vice), who is also doing business there. So much for your silly theory that the Afghanistan invasion was a resource grab.
----Bart

#93 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4688

Posted 02 May 2011 - 03:28 PM



Iraq = Started in 1990 with Iraq's Kuwait invasion, repulsion and ceasefire, decade of no-fly with a record of infractions. Followed up by UN inspection mandates requiring immediate and unconditional access to particular sites.

Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was slant drilling in Iraq territory and wouldn't stop after Iraq repeated demands for Kuwait to stop.


With that kind of logic, you could have tried a bit and justified the overthrow of Iran Iraq's socialist leader.

Fixed.
Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#94 OneThreeThreeSeven   Banned   -  Reputation: -52

Posted 02 May 2011 - 03:42 PM

Posted Image

Pictures like this do a great job of strengthening national stereotypes. Street-parties, waving flags and chanting "USA. USA. USA" because someone was assassinated. It's more weird than anything else.



A bunch of drunk, rowdy white people crowded in the street waving flags. My god...it's the perfect recipe for a lynch mob.

#95 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4688

Posted 02 May 2011 - 04:49 PM


Bin Laden is dead. Great. Now, can we get all of our freedoms back and get the hell out of the middle east?


I thought Obama was supposed to lead us out of the middle east, in addition to healing the planet and controlling ocean levels with the sheer force of his will. Maybe we should get serious about electing people who will do something more decisive than playing musical chairs with the leaders of our military-intelligence complex?

Under Obama, we're winding down in Iraq, withdrawing troops, we've killed Bin Laden and actually are focusing on Afghanistan again. Also, we'd be on the way to getting out of the energy crisis, if Republicans would not try to kill every bill that involves companies lessening pollution and waste. Oh, and trying to pass a bill that cuts money to clean energy, education, and R&D.

In any case, bashing on Obama was pretty tactless. I expect better from you.


trzy. We are directly responsible for the theocracy in Iran. When those people burn our flags and celebrate when something horrible happens to the US, they have damn good reason to.


The US is partially responsible for creating the circumstances that ultimately led to that, but why don't you also blame the Iranians who actually installed the theocracy? Let's apply Occam's Razor and assign blame to the ones actually pulling the trigger. They could have re-installed a socialist or created a secular democracy, or even a military dictatorship, but instead they chose theocracy and that's not America's fault. The takeaway lessons from the overthrow of Mossadegh are: use regime change more sparingly, be careful of blowback, and, for nationalists around the world, don't steal the property of investors backed by more powerful governments than your own.

You're right. They did install a theocracy. And oddly enough it actually works. But because Iran was declared the Axis of Evil and we're doing everything in our power to isolate them (aside from bombing them and causing WW3), they're a bit hostile. But we can keep pretending that our policies toward Iran doesn't directly affect that country.
Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#96 frob   Moderators   -  Reputation: 20466

Posted 02 May 2011 - 04:55 PM



Was it weaker than the false testimonies, propaganda and lies that led to the second Iraq invasion?

Which of the UN resolutions that were not followed would you consider a lie? I need to know the answer to that question before any reasonable response can be made.

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." George W. Bush, 19 March 2003

No such weapons were ever found either by the UN inspectors or the US occupation forces. A war that cost an est. 3 trillion dollars (source), resulted in somewhere between ~100000 to 1000000 casualties, including coalition forces (source).

Is there really anything more that needs to be said?

You are correct that none were found, but that wasn't the UN resolution.

A list of resolutions are Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686,Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, Resolution 1284, and Resolution 1441




Resolution 1441 passed with a very rare unanimous 15-0 vote from the UN Security Council.

The final resolution clearly stated it was "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations". The UN demanded immediate and unrestricted access to many sites for inspection. This UN requirement for immediate and unrestricted access was repeatedly denied, including cases where truckloads of materials were loaded and driven away while the UN inspectors were locked inside the facilities.

The resolution never required a smoking gun or stockpile of weapons. It demanded access for inspection.

So specifically, which of those UN resolutions do you claim are propaganda and lies?
Check out my personal indie blog at bryanwagstaff.com.

#97 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4688

Posted 02 May 2011 - 05:23 PM

The resolution text was drafted jointly by the United States and the United Kingdom, the result of eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations, particularly with Russia and France. France questioned the phrase "serious consequences" and stated repeatedly that any "material breach" found by the inspectors should not automatically lead to war; instead the UN should pass another resolution deciding on the course of action. In favour of this view is the fact that previous resolutions legitimizing war under Chapter VII used much stronger terms, like "...all necessary means…" in Resolution 678 in 1990 and that Resolution 1441 stated that the Security Council shall "remain seized of the matter."


[edit] Security Council vote
On November 8, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15-0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.

While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[2]



They had no nukes, chemical and biological stockpiles were considered harmless. And Iraq said they would let inspectors. The US thought it was a trick and went in anyway. So yeah, that Resolution is not really a justification for the war. Sorry.

edit:

And this:

Aftermath
In June 2006, the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), a US Department of Defense entity, released a report detailing the weapons of mass destruction that had been found in Iraq, including pre-1991 sarin gas and mustard agent. The report stated that, "While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal."[10]

The Bush administration commissioned the Iraq Survey Group to determine whether in fact any WMD existed in Iraq. After a year and half of meticulously combing through the country, the administration’s own inspectors reported[11]:

“ "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered." ” The review was conducted by Charles Duelfer and the Iraq Survey Group. In October 2004, Bush said of Duelfer’s analysis[12]: "The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."

Factual questions about the Iraqi declaration still remain. To date the contents have still not been made public for independent scrutiny.[13] When the UK government was asked to state where in the Iraqi government's declaration there were false or inaccurate statements, the reply was that it was a confidential matter and that "huge quantities of documents remain to be translated."[14]


Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#98 trzy   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Posted 02 May 2011 - 05:36 PM

Under Obama, we're winding down in Iraq, withdrawing troops, we've killed Bin Laden and actually are focusing on Afghanistan again.


The Iraq war was already due to wind down and we are no closer to victory in Afghanistan.

Also, we'd be on the way to getting out of the energy crisis, if Republicans would not try to kill every bill that involves companies lessening pollution and waste. Oh, and trying to pass a bill that cuts money to clean energy, education, and R&D.


We elected a Democratic Congress in 2006 and a Democratic President in 2008 in order to lead and get things done. You can't blame the minority party when Democrats had control of the House, Senate, and White House. We were promised change if only they were given power. Instead, they ended up suffering a historical election defeat, losing control of the House. What are you going to say next, that they somehow need more power?

I think it's an obvious case of them lying and taking advantage of partisan fools, which is precisely what leftists have exposed themselves to be.

In any case, bashing on Obama was pretty tactless. I expect better from you.


Hey, I've got plenty of praise for Obama as well. But if you want to talk about freedoms and legislation, Obama and your legislators are the go-to people.

You're right. They did install a theocracy. And oddly enough it actually works.


For an extremely limited definition of "works".

But because Iran was declared the Axis of Evil and we're doing everything in our power to isolate them (aside from bombing them and causing WW3), they're a bit hostile. But we can keep pretending that our policies toward Iran doesn't directly affect that country.


I didn't know they were such sensitive daisies. Did North Korea also become any more hostile or any less manageable? The only relevant thing we've learned from Iran in recent years is that conciliatory dialog doesn't work, either. Geopolitics is all about using power and influence to dominate regions. Iran's broader ambitions have always been there.


Here's my overall point: there's no need to beat yourself up for being an American and a Westerner. We're entering a very competitive century. There's no need to make excuses for anyone. Let's be realistic, move forward, and get things done. Returning to the original topic of this thread, we certainly don't have to feel bad about celebrating Bin Laden's death. All this talk about how we should be perpetually somber and mournful is little more than pretentious grandstanding by people who reflexively dislike anything that makes the US look successful or powerful.
----Bart

#99 SimonH   Members   -  Reputation: 133

Posted 02 May 2011 - 05:43 PM

I believe that according the US constitution assassination is illegal - so does that make this murder? Any lawyers handy?
Stickmen Wars 2 is in development.
Meanwhile try Bloodridge

#100 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4688

Posted 02 May 2011 - 05:46 PM

This isn't assassination.
Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS