Navy SEALS slam Obama.

#101
#101
and PAF was never even became a pretend threat and had they somehow become a threat, F18 jets were nearby to make sure they were taken care of. PAF was not, I repeat, ever going to come close to becoming a threat for the BlackHawks.
 
#102
#102
volfanbill said:
and PAF was never even became a pretend threat and had they somehow become a threat, F18 jets were nearby to make sure they were taken care of. PAF was not, I repeat, ever going to come close to becoming a threat for the BlackHawks.
Click to expand...

but that truth of the story does not play well on the campaign trail
 
#103
#103
volfanbill said:
and PAF was never even became a pretend threat and had they somehow become a threat, F18 jets were nearby to make sure they were taken care of. PAF was not, I repeat, ever going to come close to becoming a threat for the BlackHawks.
Click to expand...

Just wondering how you know this?
 
#104
#104
volfanbill said:
and PAF was never even became a pretend threat and had they somehow become a threat, F18 jets were nearby to make sure they were taken care of. PAF was not, I repeat, ever going to come close to becoming a threat for the BlackHawks.
Click to expand...

T-TownVol said:
but that truth of the story does not play well on the campaign trail
Click to expand...


Ok, I will assume that you are correct, and that there was no way that the PAF could ever have posed a threat to the helicopters because we had F18 jets nearby to "take care of" any PAF threat. By this I assume you mean we could have shot down any PAF threat to the helicopters.

Do you understand that this would have been a nightmare? US jets invading Paki air space to shoot down Paki jets to protect the helicopters that had earlier invaded Paki air space?

My point all along has been that the right's claim that this was no big deal, or that Obama had no serious decisions to make, choices to consider, bad outcomes to weigh, is ridiculous. By your own admission, this possibility had to be a SIGNIFICANT consideration for him.

If US jets had to go in and shoot down Paki jets to do this, you would be on here mindlessly comparing Obama to Carter, expressing outrage that the plan was poorly conceived and the risks not considered, etc., etc.

Obama deserves a lot of credit for taking the risk. You'd be all over it if it had not worked out. You need to put your partisanship aside and acknowledge that Obama made some tough decisions and took some significant risk to kill bin Laden.
 
#105
#105
lawgator1 said:
Obama deserves a lot of credit for taking the risk. You'd be all over it if it had not worked out. You need to put your partisanship aside and acknowledge that Obama made some tough decisions and took some significant risk to kill bin Laden.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, it's a shame the event is being politicized to this degree

however, the killing of Bin Laden, is all Obama has accomplished
 
#106
#106
vol_in_il said:
I agree with this, it's a shame the event is being politicized to this degree

however, the killing of Bin Laden, is all Obama has accomplished
Click to expand...


As you said, and I agreed earlier, there is plenty to legitimately criticize with Obama. There is plenty of ground available for earnest debate about economic policy, for example, and that would be healthy.

Crap like the bin Laden raid was no risk, this was a no brainer, Obama couldn't lose, etc., is just not being honest about the objective facts at the time.
 
#107
#107
mlodmkr said:
No it is not..only policy of our government prohibit assasination., not targeted threats. Study before post. The gc has nothing to do with this....and stop trying to use this "semantic distinction bull####.
Click to expand...

Additional Protocol I, Geneva Convention
Art 37. Prohibition of Perfidy 1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy.
Click to expand...

† aˈssassinate, n.
Forms: Also 16 assassinat, assasinate, assacinate.
Etymology: In sense 1, apparently < French assassinat (16th cent.), < medieval Latin assass&#299;n&#257;tus (13th cent. in Du Cange), < medieval Latin (and Italian) assass&#299;n&#257;re to assassinate. Of its use in sense 2, = assassin n., no explanation appears; we may suspect some original misapprehension of the word, or perhaps application of the analogy of homicide, parricide, etc.

1.
a. Murder, or an assault with intent to murder, by treacherous violence; assassination.
Click to expand...

treachery, n.
Pronunciation: /&#712;tr&#603;t&#643;&#601;r&#618;/
Forms: ME tricherie, tricheri, trycherye, (ME tricheri&#541;e), ME tricherye, (ME trichcherye, tricchori, ME tricchery(e, trichory, 15 tritcherie); ME–16 trecherie, trechery, (ME trecheri, trechori, trecchery, treccheri, trecchry, ME treccherie, ME trechory, trechury, tretcherye, 15 tretcherie, ME–15 trecherye), 15– treachery, (16 treacherie).
Etymology: < Old French trecherie, tricherie (12th cent. in Godefroy), French tricherie treachery, < tricher to cheat + -erie , -ery suffix. See treacher n.

a. Deceit, cheating, perfidy; violation of faith or betrayal of trust; perfidious conduct.
Click to expand...

As I said, assassination is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. Targeted, and or named, killing functions purely as a semantic device to kill persons who are not categorized as combatants under the Geneva Conventions; since states are not permitted to kill persons not categorized as Combatants under the Geneva Conventions, doing so qualifies as deceit, cheating, and a violation of faith (insofar as we have signed onto the treaty and vowed to uphold and abide by it); therefore, it qualifies as treachery. Hence, targeted killing is the murder by use of treacherous violence, a.k.a. assassination.
 
#108
#108
lawgator1 said:
Ok, I will assume that you are correct, and that there was no way that the PAF could ever have posed a threat to the helicopters because we had F18 jets nearby to "take care of" any PAF threat. By this I assume you mean we could have shot down any PAF threat to the helicopters.

Do you understand that this would have been a nightmare? US jets invading Paki air space to shoot down Paki jets to protect the helicopters that had earlier invaded Paki air space?

My point all along has been that the right's claim that this was no big deal, or that Obama had no serious decisions to make, choices to consider, bad outcomes to weigh, is ridiculous. By your own admission, this possibility had to be a SIGNIFICANT consideration for him.

If US jets had to go in and shoot down Paki jets to do this, you would be on here mindlessly comparing Obama to Carter, expressing outrage that the plan was poorly conceived and the risks not considered, etc., etc.

Obama deserves a lot of credit for taking the risk. You'd be all over it if it had not worked out. You need to put your partisanship aside and acknowledge that Obama made some tough decisions and took some significant risk to kill bin Laden.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. We have been and continue to be all over Pakistan. The Pakistani defense has stated over and over they don't consider us a threat. The Pakistan got knew the f-18s were flying all around the border and decided it wasn't an issue. They (the us govt) knew that the Pakistan army wasn't an issue.
 
#109
#109
lawgator1 said:
As you said, and I agreed earlier, there is plenty to legitimately criticize with Obama. There is plenty of ground available for earnest debate about economic policy, for example, and that would be healthy.

Crap like the bin Laden raid was no risk, this was a no brainer, Obama couldn't lose, etc., is just not being honest about the objective facts at the time.
Click to expand...

You do know that the Seals had OBL in the exact same position of a sure kill back in the summer of 2010 don't you. That date would have not been as useful for an election but lets just forget that little nugget.

But it makes for a heck of a campaign commercial now doesn't it.
 
Last edited:
#110
#110
Someone go you You Tube and post, or start a new thread with, the video titled...."Different Presidents, A Different Corps" it is very telling. (Sorry, I can not post it)
 
#111
#111
T-TownVol said:
You do know that the Seals had OBL in the exact same position of a sure kill back in the summer of 2010 don't you. That date would have not been as useful for an election but lets just forget that little nugget.

But it makes for a heck of a campaign commercial now doesn't it.
Click to expand...


Link?

And do you really think he waited but then authorized the kill in May 2011 for purposes of an election then 18 months away?
 
#113
#113
lawgator1 said:
Link?

And do you really think he waited but then authorized the kill in May 2011 for purposes of an election then 18 months away?
Click to expand...

Yes, he does. It's sad.

It is what it is, give BHO even a little credit here and move on to attacking him on things that are really going to matter come election time.

This issue of politicizing is being overblown by the right.
 
#115
#115
Election time is going to be a pissing match and that favors Obama.

Obama wants/needs the questioning of his obl raid.

Obama is savvy
 
#116
#116
rjd970 said:
But we are talking about sitting on actionable intel for an extended amount of time for political purposes? That is starting to step into tinfoil hat territory.
Click to expand...

Im not saying this is what happened, but would it really surprise you?
 
#119
#119
OrangeEmpire said:
He is a politician, why would it be surprising?
Click to expand...


It is irrational to say that he held off killing him in 2010 so that he could kill him in May of 2011 for an election in November 2012.

If his motivation in delay was to affect the election, then he would have delayed much, much longer.
 
#120
#120
lawgator1 said:
Link?

And do you really think he waited but then authorized the kill in May 2011 for purposes of an election then 18 months away?
Click to expand...

it is all over the news big guy, find your own link........I would not put it past him or any other politician
 
#121
#121
T-TownVol said:
it is all over the news big guy, find your own link........I would not put it past him or any other politician
Click to expand...


LOL. Just because you think it is possible doesn't mean its true.

Seriously, credible link he could takeout bin Laden in 2010 with same certainty as when he did in 2011 or gtfo.
 
#122
#122
lawgator1 said:
It is irrational to say that he held off killing him in 2010 so that he could kill him in May of 2011 for an election in November 2012.

If his motivation in delay was to affect the election, then he would have delayed much, much longer.
Click to expand...

might not have gotten another chance in time....the fact that you are defending this so hard speaks volumes
 
#123
#123
lawgator1 said:
I thought his initial reaction to 9/11 was outstanding. He did a great job the first 2-3 months after that in addressing the crisis created by it.

Iraq was a huge mistake.

I think economically he bought into trickle down and it blew up in his face.
Click to expand...
hold up, are you really stupid enough to argue against trickle down economics?
 
#124
#124
lawgator1 said:
It is irrational to say that he held off killing him in 2010 so that he could kill him in May of 2011 for an election in November 2012.

If his motivation in delay was to affect the election, then he would have delayed much, much longer.
Click to expand...

Never said he did
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top