mimartin Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Finding Bin Laden was never the main goal of the GWOT. The money spent on the war in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be called the cost of finding Bin Laden.?Of course he wasn't the main goal, but that wasn't what we were told by our leader at the time. Personally I don't think terrorism was the main goal either or if it was we would not have attacked Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salzella Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 The newest story is that Osama was unarmed, and resisted arrest before being double-tapped. Being unarmed has never stopped the US military before, why now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 I think trying to save time may have been a priority. Pakistan hadn't been made aware of the operation and they had begun scrambling fighter jets. Perhaps the last thing they wanted was the place to be surrounded by Pakistani forces by the time they're done with Osama. Remember that the PMA was at walking distance from the house, not only would it be an important target for attacks (terrorist ones or otherwise), but it would be easy to scramble troops if Pakistan catches wind of what's going on the compound. The US wanted a quick in, quick out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liverandbacon Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Being unarmed has never stopped the US military before, why now? How about not making sweeping statements on subjects you know nothing about? If I'd been allowed to shoot anyone I pleased, my job would've been a whole lot easier. Morally indefensible, sure, but definitely easier. I'm assuming that you're referring to civilians as well as unarmed known combatants. Osama did not surrender, and was with a bunch of his buddies who were armed. There were obviously guns in the room that he could easily grab, given the chance. It would be insane to require a US soldier to wait for him to grab a nearby gun before shooting him, all the while being shot at by Osama's friends. It's not like they waltzed into the building, found poor defenseless Osama, and shot him in the head before he could open his mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 The newest story is that Osama was unarmed, and resisted arrest before being double-tapped. I don't think there was ever any real intention of taking him alive. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I think he would have been shot pretty soon after surrendering anyway. The temptation would probably have proved too great to someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primogen Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 What a tragedy. I might shed a tear. Wait, no, that's orange juice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miltiades Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 I was musing: If you were a military operations planner and/or a government that has spent an extreme amount of resources in a war started by one man, wouldn't it be more logical to have a priority to take him alive if possible? Now, doing so would cause an incredible amount of fanfare, and cause the very likely threat of retaliatory action in the form of reverse-hostage blackmail, as is characteristic of the enemy you face. So, it would make sense to have operation representatives to make a statement to the entire world that the target has been eliminated, as the gravity of such an action would generally rule out the possibility of untruth in the minds of most people. I can almost imagine if Bin Laden was captured, America would go Roman Empire style and make him walk through the streets of NY chained to a car or something. Public humiliation and all that. In any case, I can understand the satisfaction people have gotten for Bin Laden's death (whether it's revenge, justice or something else), but the cheering in the streets I find ridiculous. Then again, Americans are weird. @Qui-Gon: I'm guessing there are a lot of reasons why someone might hate the US, depending on where you live. Me, I don't hate it, but I don't like it either. What I do think is that in more than a few ways, it's a backwater country. No offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Don't know how long this will last (esp given how this admin has been a bit all over the map post-op, so to speak): http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110504/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden Paging Donald Trump.....Donald Trump..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Being unarmed has never stopped the US military before, why now? Care to add anything constructive to the discussion, or are you merely here to troll, troll? You're just jealous because we're not an Orwellian nanny-state with video cameras on every street corner. Yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SITH LORD 872 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 I personally think they should stop bringing it up on the news, And every Talk show, And just be done with it, it's over and done with!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jawathehutt Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 I personally think they should stop bringing it up on the news, And every Talk show, And just be done with it, it's over and done with!! Its this or the wedding. You pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 I don't think that any of us should kid ourselves about Osama ever being brought into custody. I personally don't think any soldier fighting in the region would have been able to resist killing him, regardless of orders - standing or otherwise. Maybe within the first year or so after 9/11, but not after nearly a decade of evading and essentially taunting his pursuers. He was always going to be killed upon discovery, if you ask me. And really - and this is one of the few times I feel no need to criticise the American military - I don't think there's a damned thing wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SITH LORD 872 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Its this or the wedding. You pick LOL! In all honesty i would rather hear about the wedding!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian Knight Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Being unarmed has never stopped the US military before, why now? Contribute to the discussion. Give facts, make an argument. Don't just insult the whole of the US military without at least attempting to back it up, its a low blow to those of us who have or are preparing to put our lives on the line for our country. Bin Laden was a legitimate combatant, armed or not. The point of rapidly storming a building is to tilt the odds in your favor. If the enemy doesn't even have time to pick up a rifle, then those SEALs did an excellent job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Being unarmed has never stopped the US military before, why now? As opposed to what, the British military? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian Knight Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 As opposed to what, the British military? Good thing they couldn't fit the armored cars in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Also it should be noted that it was a distinct possibility he had a suicide vest on... I mean it's not like terrorists have been opposed to blowing themselves up to take people out. I say Bravo Zulu SEALs, on a job well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SITH LORD 872 Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 All i have to say is, Those SEALS have balls of steel!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primogen Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 Of course they do, they're -SEALS-. The whole organization is hardcore as hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian Knight Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 Don't forget those SOAR pilots. Helicopters aren't exactly aerodynamic when something goes wrong. A hard landing with no casualties? That's the kind of pilot I'd like to fly me around. Hell, all those SOF guys are hardcore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 Also it should be noted that it was a distinct possibility he had a suicide vest on... I mean it's not like terrorists have been opposed to blowing themselves up to take people out. I really don't see Bin Ladin wearing a suicide vest as a distinct possibility. He always seemed more like let the other guy wear the vest type of guy. Please don’t take that as an attack on the Seal that shot Bin Ladin because it is not. In life Bin Ladin seemed to approve of killing unarmed people, so I’m sure he would have approve of the Seal’s actions too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted May 7, 2011 Author Share Posted May 7, 2011 @ Taak Farst: 67 of your United Kingdom compatriots died in the 9/11 attacks, along with 24 Canadians, 11 Australians, and 271 other foreign nationals. The families of your fellow citizens who died at the word of Bin Laden have finally received some measure of justice. I apologize to them on behalf of the US military and the gov't for it taking nearly 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qui-Gon Glenn Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 @Milt: I think you know my politics a little better than that... I am a big criticizer of my country of origin, and think that we have done things that are downright despicable. I still love the land where I live... it is home, the only one I have known. But I am no nationalist. That makes us no different than all of the "powerful" nations or states in human history. Big power == big bad decisions, power plays, dirty pool, etc. @Liverandbacon: fair point on why killing him was the better and more logical choice. I am a philosopher, not a tactician, and I have no experience as a soldier. I fight CQC, and well, but in a gunfight I am screwed. I do like Stratego though. @Jae's post right above mine: great point - it was not simply Americans who suffered loss in that attack. Every one of those foreign nationals had families in there homeland who suffered a great deal. It was a tragedy that truly affected people around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salzella Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 Being unarmed has never stopped the US military before, why now? Erm, sorry about that. Don't remember writing it but i assume i was trolling yah. kids, don't drink and debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 I've been guilty of Debating Under the Influence, myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.