What would have the world been like today if Team 6 had failed? A war now between the US and Pakistan for the invasion and strike on their soil? AQ everywhere blowing themselves up? Just how big was the risk that Obama took?
No, it would have been another failed mission on Pakistani soil. There has been more than one failed mission in Pakistan. Indeed, US soldiers have served and died there.
[quote]Published: February 3, 2010
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The deaths of three American soldiers in a Taliban suicide attack on Wednesday lifted the veil on United States military assistance to Pakistan that the authorities here would like to keep quiet and the Americans, as the donors, chafe at not receiving credit for. [/quote]
HG
Pretty much the same as last week, I expect
I doubt it. The US military has been active on Pakistani soil for sometime now. Besides, how does the outcome of a strike on foriegn soil change a voliation of sovereignty?
Pretty much already the state of affairs isn’t it? Do you think there’s room for AQ to get any madder at the US? I doubt there was much risk taken by Obama at all. I chuckle at some who credit this president or that president for such things. The plain fact of the matter is you could have had the dog from the Taco Bell commercials in charge of the country and the mission still would have been carried out. Regardless any ‘risk’ taken by Obama was miniscule compared to the risk taken on by the SEAL team.
Is sovereignty a natural right, or is it instead a privilege contingent upon responsible governance? If a government harbors terrorists, even sponsors terrorism, and otherwise does not behave like a responsible government, then does it not lose the privilege of sovereignty? And in such a case, how could a strike on its soil violate said supposed sovereignty?
Ha! And I thought I’d heard all the bad shit that could be sad about lil’ Bushie! 
HG
You chuckle huh?
In our world of 200ish countries and close to 7 billion people we have leaders. Leaders come in many names and with various degrees of power, but in all cases these leaders get credit and they get blamed for all that occurs under their leadership. These are the only two options available. Those who try to speak otherwise are using a common practice known as ‘spin’. The capture of Bin Laden was nothing shy of perfection on everyone’s part, from the intelligence gatherers throughout the world to the JSOC team on the ground and all the way up to the President of the United States in the Situation Room.
President Clinton failed to get him by not calling in the right strike in 1998, President Bush never even came close. President Obama took office and actively pursued what many thought was the primary objective way back in 2001, to apprehend Osama Bin Laden. No one gets to discredit him for this mission. This won’t stop many from trying.
So keep chuckling Gman, you clearly know how the world works.
T
Donald Trump would be the next president of America.
You chuckle huh?
In our world of 200ish countries and close to 7 billion people we have leaders. Leaders come in many names and with various degrees of power, but in all cases these leaders get credit and they get blamed for all that occurs under their leadership. These are the only two options available. Those who try to speak otherwise are using a common practice known as ‘spin’. The capture of Bin Laden was nothing shy of perfection on everyone’s part, from the intelligence gatherers throughout the world to the JSOC team on the ground and all the way up to the President of the United States in the Situation Room.
President Clinton failed to get him by not calling in the right strike in 1998, President Bush never even came close. President Obama took office and actively pursued what many thought was the primary objective way back in 2001, to apprehend Osama Bin Laden. No one gets to discredit him for this mission. This won’t stop many from trying.
So keep chuckling Gman, you clearly know how the world works.
T[/quote]
It’s not about discrediting Obama but come on, do you really think the whole national security apparatus changes with a change in political leadership? Are you trying to say that the intelligence community was just hanging around eating Big Macs and Obama came in and said “we gotta get this Bin Laden guy” and at that point they all went back to work??
No, you have it ass backwards. Those that try to assign blame or credit to event that happen during a given leader’s tenure are the ones who are using spin. Was the failure in 1998 really due to Clinton alone? Was really as simple as that? All Clinton had to do was say Yea or Nay and he decided to let him go? No other circumstances or considerations were present?
Yes leaders get credit and blame that is not the issue or in dispute. The question is whether it is warrented. In this case specifically are you trying to say that in this exact circumstance any other president in Obama’s position would have failed??
Actually, Clinton failed to get OBL because Clinton and his admin viewed OBL and AQ terrorism as a criminal rather than military/defense matter.
No. Bush did come close at Tora Bora. OBL even wrote a will and expected to be killed there. Many argue that Bush screwed up by not committing more US troops to the endeavor and instead relyied on Afghan troops and Pakistani troops to seal the border. Bush believed that too many US troops on the ground in Afghanistan would enrage the islamic world… In any event, Bush came close to getting OBL in Tora Bora.
On a side note, many people are citing Bush’s statement of disinterest in OBL. That statement, unsurprisingly, is being taken out of context. When Bush was telling reporters that he didn’t know where OBL was and that he didn’t care, his obvious meaning was that the WOT was going to go on whether OBL was found and killed or not. I think its foolish to imagine that Bush would not have attempted to kill OBL had the intelligence enabling him to do so been available. Its not easy to locate a guy who is hiding in inhospitable terrain among sympathetic locals.
Who thought that? As if finding and apprehending OBL would end all the trouble? He’s a valuable trophy, for sure, both for intelligence, morale and for the symbolic worth… but, I don’t think most people believed that finding and apprehending OBL was the goal and end-all.
Obomber gets credit from me for sticking with the investigation and for giving the order to go ahead. But, let’s not give Obomber ALL the credit, either.
Is sovereignty a natural right, or is it instead a privilege contingent upon responsible governance? If a government harbors terrorists, even sponsors terrorism, and otherwise does not behave like a responsible government, then does it not lose the privilege of sovereignty? And in such a case, how could a strike on its soil violate said supposed sovereignty?[/quote]
Soverienty and it’s legitimacy are an artifical construct but let’s put the philosophical arguments aside. Practically speaking and specific to this case are you contending that Pakistan is not a legitimate nation? That’s it’s sovereignty is not recognized by the international community? That is news to me.
What I’m saying is that if a government harbors or fails through gross negligence to root out terrorists on its soil and those terrorists are a clear threat to other nations, then why should an artificial construct such as sovereignty stand in the way of action by other nations to eliminate such a threat?
So, you had no problem with Bush II’s invasion of Iraq?
What I’m saying is that if a government harbors or fails through gross negligence to root out terrorists on its soil and those terrorists are a clear threat to other nations, then why should an artificial construct such as sovereignty stand in the way of action by other nations to eliminate such a threat?[/quote]
Well as you can see in numerous examples. The only thing you need to justify suspending another nation’s soverienty is an overwhelming military advantage. Again, if you want to get into a pointless debate about the legitemacy of nations and sovereignty start a thread on it. In this case the OP worried about a possible conflict between the US and Pakistan due to this operation. I pointed out that the US had already been active on Pakistani soil. I then questioned wether a mission’s success or failure was what determined whether a military operation in another country was a violation of sovereignty. For the purposes of her concerns the sovereignty of pakisan was a given.
This board is filled with a lot of confused people when it comes to leadership and responsibility.
Ha! And I thought I’d heard all the bad shit that could be sad about lil’ Bushie!
HG[/quote]
Damn it. This is the second time this week you’ve beaten me to the punch.
Sadly, this is probably true. Despite Bush fucking around and not getting OBL for years, Obama missing him once would have been an absolute feeding frenzy for Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, O’Reilly, etc. Anyone even vaguely right wing in America would harp on about this at any and every opportunity.
I think the other thing is that whilst the U.S. is undoubtably really pissed off at Pakistan right now, they’d be ten times more pissed off if OBL had got away. Of course, much of the rest of the world would probably have feigned outrage that the U.S. had carried out an operation inside Pakistan. Fuck Pakistan. They’ve shown themselves (as if anyone were previously really in doubt) to be a bunch of either completely incompetent knuckleheads or completely evil cunts complicit in the whole thing.
Tacos from Taco Bell, surely! Please apply some consistency in your hypothetical examples. :raspberry:
So, you had no problem with Bush II’s invasion of Iraq?[/quote]
I still don’t know why the U.S. didn’t just take Saddam Hussein out back around the time of Desert Storm. I’m opposed to getting into messy ground wars, but not “violating airspace” and simultaneously bombing the shit out of every palace or home known to belong to someone like Saddam Hussein. Sending a team in probably would have been too risky still, though I wouldn’t have been opposed to the concept.
Well I’m sure if you leave things are bound to improve in that regard.
What I’m saying is that if a government harbors or fails through gross negligence to root out terrorists on its soil and those terrorists are a clear threat to other nations, then why should an artificial construct such as sovereignty stand in the way of action by other nations to eliminate such a threat?[/quote]
It occurs to me to ask. On the above basis is the US not justified in invading Saudi Arabia?
Not going to happen. Hes the class clown. I wear his shirts and carry his wallet but I aint voting for him, except to vote him OFF the board.
Tacos from Taco Bell, surely! Please apply some consistency in your hypothetical examples. :raspberry:[/quote]
Sorry, Taco Bell let their endorsement fee lapse and I was forced to find a new sponsor.
[quote=“Fox”]Donald Trump would be the next president of America.[/quote]At least he would probably know how to get the economy back on its feet. That guys doesn’t know everything, but he knows numbers. He’d get my vote if he ran for office. They are all crooks so might as well vote for the one guy that knows how to add 2 and 2.