Posted by burnsy483 on 11/15/2013 10:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/15/2013 10:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 11/15/2013 10:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/15/2013 10:46:00 AM (view original):
What I'm saying, as it's obvious with Syria and NKorea, that we can turn a blind eye when dictators are abusing their people.   We COULD, except for that policy issue, have taken out SH with a sniper(or drone) and let nature take it's course.   We tried to rebuild a nation. 

Yes, I understand the process of taking down SH meant that we also had to build the nation back up.  I don't think it was worth losing 5000 American soldiers.

The more qualified people who make those decisions did. 

Do you agree that the world is a better place without SH and his sons?

Yes, obviously.  And now we could get into "does the US have a responsibility to police the world" which is a different debate.  I'd say yes, in the right circumstances.  I don't think this was.

The more qualified people thought it was the right circumstances.   I defer to them. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 11/15/2013 10:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/15/2013 10:50:00 AM (view original):

It's pretty obvious that you're confused.

1.  Saddam.   No invasion.   A simple find and shoot with a sniper.   Two people.
2.  bin Laden.   No invasion.  A simple find and shoot with Seal Team 6.   A couple of squads.

How did 2000+ Americans die in Afghanistan? 

Ask Obama.  Nearly 80% of that 2000+ died on his watch.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/15/2013 10:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 11/15/2013 10:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/15/2013 10:50:00 AM (view original):

It's pretty obvious that you're confused.

1.  Saddam.   No invasion.   A simple find and shoot with a sniper.   Two people.
2.  bin Laden.   No invasion.  A simple find and shoot with Seal Team 6.   A couple of squads.

How did 2000+ Americans die in Afghanistan? 

They were obviously sent there.    Don't do that.   

Do what was done with ST6.

I'm confused what you're arguing.  We invaded Afghanistan to remove bin Laden.  We invaded Iraq to remove Saddam.  Thousands died in both cases, but the decision to remove bin Laden was obviously much more warranted, as he attacked our country.

Posted by burnsy483 on 11/15/2013 10:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/15/2013 10:55:00 AM (view original):
Anyway, this got off-topic quick.   That's on me as I mentioned Dubya.

We should be celebrating our President finally taking responsibility for a bad decision and admitting he wasn't exacly honest with the public.

Yes, you compared this law with a decision to go to war.

No, I asked if I could apply this to Dubya:

"I'm not defending him. He absolutely did not tell the truth. Either he didn't know or he lied."

Executive decisions. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 11/15/2013 11:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/15/2013 10:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 11/15/2013 10:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/15/2013 10:50:00 AM (view original):

It's pretty obvious that you're confused.

1.  Saddam.   No invasion.   A simple find and shoot with a sniper.   Two people.
2.  bin Laden.   No invasion.  A simple find and shoot with Seal Team 6.   A couple of squads.

How did 2000+ Americans die in Afghanistan? 

They were obviously sent there.    Don't do that.   

Do what was done with ST6.

I'm confused what you're arguing.  We invaded Afghanistan to remove bin Laden.  We invaded Iraq to remove Saddam.  Thousands died in both cases, but the decision to remove bin Laden was obviously much more warranted, as he attacked our country.

We didn't get bin Laden because of the invasion.   We got inside information about his hideout and took him out with a small force. 

I'm telling you both SH and OBL could have been taken out without invasions.   The "no assassination" policy forced a different strategy with SH.  Invading, and staying in, Afghanistan was done to appease the public. 

How did we get inside information on where he was? If we didn't have a presence after our invasion, are we getting that information? Did we have intelligence on the location of SH but didn't use it because we didn't want to assassinate him?  I don't think we had a ST6 option with SH, unless I missed something.

Invading Afghanistan was done because you can't let an organization exist when it has the ability and desire to kill thousands of American civilians on our own soil.  

This is kind of a silly argument, as SH was a head of state, while OBL was not.  Different rules apply.

Taking out SH with ST6 would have created the hugest of shitstorms for the USA.  To try to pull something like that off, it would have had to have been the blackest of black-ops, with any possible connection to the USA as completely sanitized as possible.  It's not something that GWB would have held an 11:30pm nationally televised address to the nation to say "We got him".

You seem to believe that the President lying to the American public should be conditional.  OK in some circumstances, not OK in others.

Is that true?

Posted by tecwrg on 11/15/2013 12:23:00 PM (view original):
You seem to believe that the President lying to the American public should be conditional.  OK in some circumstances, not OK in others.

Is that true?

I think A) that's exactly true and it's naive to believe otherwise and B) even if it wasn't OK, these two lies aren't be comparable in terms of the severity of the consequences.

Are you saying Obama lying in this instance was ok?  Because it wasn't.

I guess we'll go thru this again.   Be polite or be gone.    Matters not to me.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/15/2013 12:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/15/2013 12:23:00 PM (view original):
You seem to believe that the President lying to the American public should be conditional.  OK in some circumstances, not OK in others.

Is that true?

I think A) that's exactly true and it's naive to believe otherwise and B) even if it wasn't OK, these two lies aren't be comparable in terms of the severity of the consequences.

OK.

What justified Obama's lie about "If you like the healthcare you have now, you can keep it"?

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/15/2013 12:37:00 PM (view original):
I guess we'll go thru this again.   Be polite or be gone.    Matters not to me.

How was I impolite?

Posted by burnsy483 on 11/15/2013 11:14:00 AM (view original):
How did we get inside information on where he was? If we didn't have a presence after our invasion, are we getting that information? Did we have intelligence on the location of SH but didn't use it because we didn't want to assassinate him?  I don't think we had a ST6 option with SH, unless I missed something.

Invading Afghanistan was done because you can't let an organization exist when it has the ability and desire to kill thousands of American civilians on our own soil.  

EDIT: I suppose we had a good idea where he lived before the invasion.  I would imagine we didn't have the ability to send American soldiers to the capital to take him out, ST6 style, with thousands of people living around him, and what I imagine were pretty good bodyguards/army around him.  If we did, then yea, I would have been for that too.
 

I think we have organizations that were specifically created to get information.    Would it have taken longer than 10 years?  Beats me.  10 years seems like a long time.    I can google map my house and see my truck in the driveway.    Seems like our spy organizations would have better intel than that. 

Posted by bad_luck on 11/15/2013 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/15/2013 12:37:00 PM (view original):
I guess we'll go thru this again.   Be polite or be gone.    Matters not to me.

How was I impolite?

If you don't know, I can't help you.