UBL, Part II

So much for the “tea and crumpets” methodology Obama originally proposed when he campaigned. So is that really change, or more of the same? To me it sounds more like “W”—but he sure fooled you and Doove, et al. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I call bullshit. He did exactly what he said he'd do during the debates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu4sytmrjJ0

Quit making shit up and don't make me go all Mazo on you.

In an effort not to hijack the other thread…but because I just like to rile things up…

What is the take (from the kinder and gentler crowd here) on this action? As I understand it, our Prez ordered the execution of a foreign citizen, on foreign lands. Don’t get me wrong. I am and was all for it. It was a no-brainer to me. But I’m just a simple Texan who doesn’t have the sensibilities of some of the more erudite members of our little board here.

Does the Jack Sparrow-like moral compass swing in the direction where this was “Right”? Originally Posted by Rudyard K

The only thing I found wrong with it all is that it didn't happen sooner.

He finally got what he deserved.

I agree (& we didn't win the war yet) Originally Posted by atlcomedy

What war? The War on Terrorism(tm)? How exactly do you win a war on a concept? What ascertains victory?

What war? The War on Terrorism(tm)? How exactly do you win a war on a concept? What ascertains victory? Originally Posted by jenesys

Excellent question; that is the conundrum.

I call bullshit. He did exactly what he said he'd do during the debates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu4sytmrjJ0

Quit making shit up and don't make me go all Mazo on you. Originally Posted by Doove

I extended a compliment to the man, because he’s adopted a “realist” position and followed through with swift and decisive action just as “W” would have done. Somehow, that’s riled you. IMO, Obama would be in the back gallery of the Senate condemning Bush if he’d taken similar action four years ago.

Technically it was a capture or kill if resist order Originally Posted by discreetgent

You getting copies of the orders now?

You getting copies of the orders now? Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Nah, I saw this one in the Wall Street Journal

I extended a compliment to the man, because he’s adopted a “realist” position and followed through with swift and decisive action just as “W” would have done. Somehow, that’s riled you. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Where did i get riled over your attempt to compliment him? I got riled because you lied about him.

IMO,

Oh, ok. Say no more.

Kinda, I think there is overwhelming support for killing Bin Laden. I mean even people that detest football will go to a Superbowl party if there is gonna be good food.

The question really is will the left be as equally supportive of attacks under similar circumstances (foreign citizens, foreign soil) of less "infamous" or "symbolic" targets? Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I like the tweak, because we can’t avoid our own perceptual biases. We want democracy in other countries as long as the person we want elected gets elected… But I digress.

Politically I lean towards the left, but I don’t see this question so much as a right versus left. Oh sure you could make it whatever you want, but a moral compass is used by both sides all the time. All those ACLU issues on the left, family values on the right…the compass sure does spin in a lot of different directions.

I am often assumed and perplexed by moral arguments. It really does seem to a matter of – “…so long as their guy is calling the shots”. Often subject to interpretation – on both sides. A good example of this is listening to religion folks (I can only speak of Christians here because they are only churches I’ve attended with any regularity). Sidebar – I like to attend services from many different Christian faiths because I’m curious as to how many different ways one can present and interpret the same biblical text… My point here is – in terms of morality – we are told not to kill in many religions. But, for some there is leeway as long as the “right” people are being killed. Subject to interpreation…

In any event, I don’t see either side as having a particularly good moral compass so much as a “selective – if it suits my cause sense of morality”. Call me a cynic.

Mostly the reason I’m posting here is that as much as I am a pacifist – sometimes… You’re waiting for me to say, “killing is alright as long as the right people get killed”. Unfortunately, I see this as a slippery slope and here is why. You can hate Bin Laden for what he did and justify his death. But realize that our belief in our justification is no different than his (or those around him) justification for why they kill people… I just can’t see how to avoid this pitfall.

I find this quite the intellectual and moral dilemma. In truth, I’m glad he is dead. However, I do not think we should celebrate death – ever. And that I think is the biggest problem I have with this. Fighting over who should get credit for having killed someone seems…out of place with any sense of morality I’ve ever heard. Justice has been served, but I see no reason to take joy in that act.

Just my half-cent.

Schrödinger's Pussycat

I would have had no problem with GWB issuing the same order as Obama did; does that help? Originally Posted by discreetgent

Non-citizens have no due process rights.

I find this quite the intellectual and moral dilemma. In truth, I’m glad he is dead. However, I do not think we should celebrate death – ever. And that I think is the biggest problem I have with this. Fighting over who should get credit for having killed someone seems…out of place with any sense of morality I’ve ever heard. Justice has been served, but I see no reason to take joy in that act.

Just my half-cent.

Schrödinger's Pussycat Originally Posted by Schrödinger's cat

As the Bible was translated through the ages, much of the original meaning of the original text was miscopied or misunderstood. Bible scholars today understand the Sixth commandment as “You will not murder” rather than the KJV: Matthew 5:21-26, which states, “Thou shalt not kill.” Hence, the right to defend yourself or your family with deadly force is not proscribed in the Bible’s original text. Likewise, a nation could wage war without there being any moral dilemma. It was never a moral issue for ancient man.

Man’s oldest extant writings pertain to business and inventories. Man’s oldest literature pertains to war: the king of Uruk oppressed his people with persistent war. Hence, war has been one of man’s principal activities since the dawn of time. In 1832, Clausewitz’s On War established a maxim that held sway up to WWI: “War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.” This was accepted as normal by most nations up to WWI.

Certain politicians are naïve when they say war will go away because they wish it so. People that believe them are likewise gullible. The best we can hope for is to keep it at a minimum and at arms length, but it’s entirely wrong-headed to believe it can be entirely and indefinitely stopped.

Bin Laden’s death is like a thorn being removed from a festering wound. First of all, it had to be removed, and there will probably always be a scar to remind us of the wound. At least now, the wound has a chance to heal. Is this a reason to celebrate? Probably not, but it sure feels good.

You can call it a “jab,” but I meant it as a compliment when I compared Obama to “W.” Obama promised “change” and insisted polite dialog was all that was necessary to resolve issues of international import. As a realist who doesn’t live in “Candy Land,” I took him at his word and didn’t vote for him. Yet when the rubber met the road, Obama discovered, no doubt to his great chagrin—and just like ol’ “W” before him—he had to rely once again on ol’ rule two-two-three.

Bin Laden’s death came at the muzzle of a weapon: probably an M4 Carbine, caliber .223 (maybe a 9mm Sig: it’ll come out eventually). So much for the “tea and crumpets” methodology Obama originally proposed when he campaigned. So is that really change, or more of the same? To me it sounds more like “W”—but he sure fooled you and Doove, et al.

And if any President would have killed Obama, why didn’t Clinton do it in 2000? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ns/nightly_news/


My question is: "What would Senator Obama's position have been if 'W' four years ago had sent troops to execute a foreign national, in a foreign country, without its knowledge or approval?" Originally Posted by I B Hankering

LOL, just quit making stuff up. We've all seen by now the clip of the President during one of the latter campaign debates talking about what he would do if Pakistan was either unable or unwilling to take UBL out. What was only shown on the hated "liburrel" media was McCain's response. McCain's response was, basically, to call Obama unskilled and unsophisticated in the ways of the world to even propose such a thing. Hmmmm, who was serving the tea and crumpets? Ya see, IP Freely, things here in "Candyland" are good since no time is spent contorting things to fit an outlook. The refreshing thing about just looking at what happens and listening to what is said is that we here in the Land of the Candy don't fall victim to actually believing the lies and misrepresentations we might tell if we followed the Foxed-Up Nooze model. Please have enough behind the berries to take it as it comes, good or bad, if you are going to bother with staking out a position.

You are exactly on the mark, however, with your remark about UBL having been a thorn in a festering sore. That sore would never heal until the thorn was removed. So, I guess it's a "feel good" moment if one wants to trivialize the removal of a root cause behind some serious suffering. What I feel the best about is that even though it took almost 10 years, he was eventually dealt with. THAT, sport, is the real lesson in all of this, both to the impatient among us and to those aspiring to take UBL's place.

I

Schrödinger's Pussycat Originally Posted by Schrödinger's cat

Oh you!!!! I like you just because you have the best best best Name EVER!!!
And i value what you said. I try to be a pacifist as well intellectually. Realistically it is not always possible, because no one would NOT kill me because i would not kill them.

A slight thread hijack:

That's quite amusing. A well executed thread hijacking!