|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 2, 2011 12:31:26 GMT -5
Anyway, enough of this partisan sideshow. Let's get back to the actual topic.
It was a symbolic, although inconsequential, victory. Glad he's gone, but in the general scheme of things it doesn't matter. OBL was pretty much irrelevant by now. Let's not get cocky and think this changes anything.
|
|
|
Post by bonkers on May 2, 2011 12:35:22 GMT -5
bin laden has effectively been 'retired' for a few years, his death makes absolutely no change to anything, anwar al-awlaki is the biggest threat to the west
and he is american!!!
|
|
|
Post by matt on May 2, 2011 12:36:08 GMT -5
Big news, I wonder what effect this is going to have - not much in my opinion. Certainly made my International Relations lecture more interesting today!
Al Qaeda aren't going to break apart from the death of Bin Laden (they've become increasingly weak over the last few years anyhow). It does send out a big message from the US to the rest of the world though and relieves the frustration of the enemy that eluded them all the time.
Credit to the US government's for carrying the mission out. It's obvious that Bush put all his effort behind it and Obama finished it off. What's crucial to Obama's reputation is all those claims that he is weak on terrorism - well a big bonus for him because his name is now going to be associated with catching public enemy No 1. He's intent on getting this across what with his 'I authorised this, I did this, etc' he made in his speech early this morning!
I can see NL4E's point of view. It's similar to the troubles in Northen Ireland over here. Tony Blair is seen as the one who made peace but the process was actually started by John Major in the 1990s.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 2, 2011 12:40:00 GMT -5
bin laden has effectively been 'retired' for a few years, his death makes absolutely no change to anything, anwar al-awlaki is the biggest threat to the west and he is american!!! Agreed. What makes it even worse is that the fucker went to George Washington University!
|
|
|
Post by matt on May 2, 2011 12:47:21 GMT -5
bin laden has effectively been 'retired' for a few years, his death makes absolutely no change to anything, anwar al-awlaki is the biggest threat to the west and he is american!!! Agreed. What makes it even worse is that the fucker went to George Washington University! Yeah, talk about hypocrisy. 'I hate your country and it's neoliberal ways but I got my education there'. Mind you, looks like Pakistan have been caught red handed - that's pretty massive. I'm pleased that Obama reiterated that it was not an attack on Muslims - I cannot stand those who make those wide sweeping racist statements that it's 'Muslims to blame'.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 2, 2011 12:50:39 GMT -5
Agreed. What makes it even worse is that the fucker went to George Washington University! Yeah, talk about hypocrisy. 'I hate your country and it's neoliberal ways but I got my education there'. Mind you, looks like Pakistan have been caught red handed - that's pretty massive. I'm pleased that Obama reiterated that it was not an attack on Muslims - I cannot stand those who make those wide sweeping racist statements that it's 'Muslims to blame'. Some sort of bribing had to have taken place. There's no way the Pakistani government didn't know about the mansion, built in 2005, 30 miles away from the capital city! Pakistan has a lot to answer for.
|
|
|
Post by Cast on May 2, 2011 13:11:34 GMT -5
I'm happy for the families affected by not just 9/11 but all his terrorist attacks as well as our military forces and their families. Bin Laden's death doesn't stop terrorism but this surely brings a mild sense of peace to his victims.
Obama didn't do this. Neither did Bush. Don't try and make this a political victory. I do believe that this will be a HUGE help to Obama in his reelection campaign but I hate that A) American's need shit like this to "unite" them and B) people trying to make this a political victory. The world still is full of evil but killing Bin Laden has helped rid it of some evil. God Bless not only America but everyone involved in this operation, it is a monumental event.
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on May 2, 2011 13:18:17 GMT -5
Yeah, talk about hypocrisy. 'I hate your country and it's neoliberal ways but I got my education there'. Mind you, looks like Pakistan have been caught red handed - that's pretty massive. I'm pleased that Obama reiterated that it was not an attack on Muslims - I cannot stand those who make those wide sweeping racist statements that it's 'Muslims to blame'. Some sort of bribing had to have taken place. There's no way the Pakistani government didn't know about the mansion, built in 2005, 30 miles away from the capital city! Pakistan has a lot to answer for. I guess Pakistan already answered all the relevant questions - and probably came to the conclusion that is would be easier to sacrifice OBL instead of seriously damaging the relationship with the US. I don't think the US could have done this stunt without the Pakistani intelligence knowing about it...
|
|
|
Post by bonkers on May 2, 2011 13:38:44 GMT -5
Some sort of bribing had to have taken place. There's no way the Pakistani government didn't know about the mansion, built in 2005, 30 miles away from the capital city! Pakistan has a lot to answer for. I guess Pakistan already answered all the relevant questions - and probably came to the conclusion that is would be easier to sacrifice OBL instead of seriously damaging the relationship with the US. I don't think the US could have done this stunt without the Pakistani intelligence knowing about it... of course they didn't know about it but they DID know he was there!!! there is no way that bin laden could of got from tora bora to there and live 100 meters from Pakistans biggest military school/recruitment centre without ISI knowing.
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on May 2, 2011 13:39:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on May 2, 2011 13:47:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by manualex on May 2, 2011 14:03:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 2, 2011 15:02:13 GMT -5
Obama didn't do this. Neither did Bush. Don't try and make this a political victory. I do believe that this will be a HUGE help to Obama in his reelection campaign but I hate that A) American's need shit like this to "unite" them and B) people trying to make this a political victory. The world still is full of evil but killing Bin Laden has helped rid it of some evil. God Bless not only America but everyone involved in this operation, it is a monumental event. I disagree. It will give him a bump for a month or so, but it'll be forgotten about soon enough. As a political scientist, I know that the economy (and more specifically the unemployment number) drives elections. If the economy is how it is now in the summer of 2012, he can kiss any chance of re-election goodbye. The electorate doesn't care about OBL anymore. He hasn't been, and nor should he have been, a top priority. Also, I just hope we don't see retaliatory acts of terror in the near future......
|
|
|
Post by shoofee on May 2, 2011 15:23:29 GMT -5
Obama didn't do this. Neither did Bush. Don't try and make this a political victory. I do believe that this will be a HUGE help to Obama in his reelection campaign but I hate that A) American's need shit like this to "unite" them and B) people trying to make this a political victory. The world still is full of evil but killing Bin Laden has helped rid it of some evil. God Bless not only America but everyone involved in this operation, it is a monumental event. I disagree. It will give him a bump for a month or so, but it'll be forgotten about soon enough. As a political scientist.. Bush deserves a little credit for this, but very little, and in fact, he deserves even more criticism now for not finishing the job in the first place. It was under his watch that we were attacked, which he then went after a completely unrelated country after starting and not finishing in Afghanistan. Just as a president gets "props" when things go well, they get it up the ass when things go wrong. The Bush Administration also devalued Bin Laden during the Iraq War. "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him ..." George W. Bush, March 13, 2002 www.irregulartimes.com/clarke.htmlwww.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htmIt was on Obama's watch that he was caught. It was Obama who said during his campaign that bin laden was the #1 priority in the region. www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2008/11/18/bin_laden/While I agree, this will give Obama a boost for now, it gives him a huge boost for the future in respect to national security. Obama was at the helm when the most wanted terrorist in history was caught. Obama was the one who made the call to go in on the ground rather than bomb the house to smithereens. www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54093.htmlThis is absolutely huge for Obama. There's no discounting it. There's no sugar-coating it. Had this happened in 2003, it'd have been an even bigger Bush re-election victory. As far as the war ramifications. It means little. Its symbolic more than anything else. Im sure the "bad guys" are plotting as we speak and probably knew that this day was going to come someday.
|
|
|
Post by bluemagpie on May 2, 2011 15:33:36 GMT -5
come on, bluemagpie. it was obvious of his general location. and in the grand scope of things the middle east is small in comparison to the entire world. it's not like he could've been anywhere else, he'd stick out like a sore thumb. and, the u.s. has the money to buy the best intelligence. 10 years is far too long. And like I said, he wasn't even in a cave. He was in a huge compound in a rich suburban neighborhood of Pakistan. I'm aware of that, but caves and compounds in the wilderness were always a possibility. And yes, the Middle East isn't the biggest region in the world, but it's pretty damn huge when you have to search all of it.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 2, 2011 15:39:04 GMT -5
I disagree. It will give him a bump for a month or so, but it'll be forgotten about soon enough. As a political scientist.. Bush deserves a little credit for this, but very little, and in fact, he deserves even more criticism now for not finishing the job in the first place. It was under his watch that we were attacked, which he then went after a completely unrelated country after starting and not finishing in Afghanistan. Just as a president gets "props" when things go well, they get it up the ass when things go wrong. The Bush Administration also devalued Bin Laden during the Iraq War. He wasn't a priority. "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him ..." George W. Bush, March 13, 2002 www.irregulartimes.com/clarke.htmlwww.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htmIt was on Obama's watch that he was caught. It was Obama who said during his campaign that bin laden was the #1 priority in the region. www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2008/11/18/bin_laden/While I agree, this will give Obama a boost for now, it gives him a huge boost for the future in respect to national security. Obama was at the helm when the most wanted terrorist in history was caught. Obama was the one who made the call to go in on the ground rather than bomb the house to smithereens. www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54093.htmlLook what Rush Limbaugh of all people has said today: This is absolutely huge for Obama. There's no discounting it. There's no sugar-coating it. Had this happened in 2003, it'd have been an even bigger Bush re-election victory. As far as the war ramifications. It means little. Its symbolic more than anything else. Im sure the "bad guys" are plotting as we speak and probably knew that this day was going to come someday. This is starting to get very frustrating. You just helped prove my point even further: Bush didn't deserve criticism for 9/11 just because it happened under his watch. Like with the current situation, you have to go back and apply historical context. -- 9/11 took 8 years to plan, the bulk of it under Clinton's administration. Clinton had several clear cut chances to take OBL in the mid 90s, but feared collateral damage. You have to wonder why Clinton didn't do more than a few mere cruise missiles. Remember, OBL attacked the WTC in 1993, the US Embassy in Africa in 1998, and the USS Cole in 2000......He declared war on the US in 1996. He was a known problem in the 1990s. It wasn't something new to Bush. Even with the August 2001 memo, Bush was almost powerless to stop 9/11 from happening. The seed was already sown. Likewise, if it wasn't for Bush, Obama wouldn't have been in the position to have authorized the killing of OBL today. I believe the tip came from someone at Gitmo, of all places. Talk about vindication! Look, without Bush's beginning of stalking OBL and searching for him, and targeting AQ there would have been no "ending" (although, this doesn't really end anything bar one mad man's life, to be fair). Lastly, Bush understood it wasn't too important to kill OBL. Symbolic? Sure. Important? No. We weakened AQ drastically under Bush, and to deny that is sheer ignorance. And no. This will not play a single factor for the electorate in 2012. You may be right - if Bush killed OBL approaching the 2004 election, he may have won more decisively. But times were much much different then. Unemployment was still at around 5%. And OBL was deemed relevant. This will not be amongst the issues people vote on. It does look good for the Obama resume, but amidst everything else he simply can't run on "I killed OBL, so vote for me." If I don't have a job, and have to pay $5 gas, and endorse an unpopular health care mandate that was rammed down my throat, and not trust the man's overall foreign policy leadership - OBL aside, etc....I couldn't give a fuck if OBL was still living in a mansion in Pakistan, considering he's irrelevant. There's more pressing issue. Mark my words, this will be a dead issues (no pun intended) within 1-2 months.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 2, 2011 15:46:22 GMT -5
Some of you need to read this: blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/05/02/should-bush-get-credit-for-bin-laden-killing/There is continuity to the national security apparatus that previous presidents deserve credit for, something which a lot of you are over looking. Just because one administration comes to an end and another begins doesn't mean everything starts anew. In fact, Obama has continued countless Bush foreign policies......
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on May 2, 2011 16:41:17 GMT -5
I guess Pakistan already answered all the relevant questions - and probably came to the conclusion that is would be easier to sacrifice OBL instead of seriously damaging the relationship with the US. I don't think the US could have done this stunt without the Pakistani intelligence knowing about it... of course they didn't know about it but they DID know he was there!!! there is no way that bin laden could of got from tora bora to there and live 100 meters from Pakistans biggest military school/recruitment centre without ISI knowing. Oh I am sure they did know he was there. However, the news said the helicopters started from a Pakistani air base - I don't believe this mission could have been finished without Pakistani giving the permission - or at least knowing about it (probably not everyone in the Pakistani government but certainly some people knew). To me it looks like a deal between the US and Pakistan: The US get OBL and Pakistan is allowed to look like they have absolutely nothing to do with it! (for pretty obvious reasons, of course) Pakistan used the extremists for their conflict with India - now they were caught (surprise!) pampering Osama in his fancy house. But Pakistan is way too important for the US and the US is way too important for Pakistan - the result is: OBL is dead.
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on May 2, 2011 16:55:22 GMT -5
Lastly, Bush understood it wasn't too important to kill OBL. Symbolic? Sure. Important? No. We weakened AQ drastically under Bush, and to deny that is sheer ignorance. Ha ha, as a political scientist you should know that Bush would have posed with the head of Osama for TIME magazine. Title: "Mission accomplished. How our President killed the most dangerous man in the world." This would have been supported by a massive campaign like: "What, a democrat should be in charge? They didn't even get Osama! We did! We saved millions of lives!" The reason, why Bush told OBL wasn't that important was because he didn't get him! (do you remember Saddam?) And besides that: You claim that the poor economical situation is Obamas fault. Sorry, but this is just absurd!
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 2, 2011 17:13:48 GMT -5
It doesn't matter who's fault it is. Obama can not win with unemployment at 8.9%. He would be voted out.
This could easily be a repeat of the 1992 election. George H. W. Bush had foreign policy successes, and coming out of Desert Storm had approval ratings in the 80s, only to lose the election a year later due to the economy. "It's the economy, stupid!"
Stop kidding yourselves. This has no implication for 2012.
Once this rotates out of the news cycle, you'll see that I'm right.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on May 2, 2011 17:26:45 GMT -5
Here'a an analogy: Ronald Reagan over saw the end of the Cold War, but other president's played their part as well. While Reagan gets credited for ending the Cold War, work from previous administrations enabled him to get to that point. Stop being short sighted. by those standards, it's reagan's fault for 9/11. we trained and gave the taliban weapons to fight against the soviets during the '80s. it was justified under something called the reagan doctrine. then, you can also blame saddam hussein on reagan (and especially donald rumsfeld) for giving him weapons and training in order to fight the iranians. i don't know how you can give bush credit for this. he was making statements only six months after 9/11 that he wasn't all that interested in osama bin laden anymore. in july 2006, the bush administration closed its unit that was hunting osama bin laden. in that same year, bush said that an emphasis on bin laden "doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism." bush's lack of interest was nothing more than an act of cognitive dissonance. you say it's nothing more than just a symbolic victory. YOU ARE WRONG. tell that to the loved ones of the 3,000 innocent civilians killed on september 11. this man was behind it all. those attacks injured thousands more thanks to the aftermath of it. symbolism, my ass. Pakistan has a lot to answer for. they do. to even consider them as allies is beyond ludicrous. they were harboring him, and everybody knew it.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on May 2, 2011 17:51:29 GMT -5
I will agree with NL4E on this point, for anyone who thinks that this will mean anything around election time, you're sadly mistaken. Politics/approval ratings/polls, don't matter. There's no such thing as a political game changer a year and half away from an election. Politics, just like the news, goes through cycles. Were not around election time, we're a year and a half away. Of course if this happened around an election Obama would use this, but it's not around an election. The only poll that really matter is the one taken on election day.
NL4E is also right that Obama will not win a 8.9% unemployment rate, but tha has steadily been declining over the past few months, and many econimists have it as continuing to decline. So unless the econonmy takes a turn for the worst, he'll probably be re-elected. The projection is for unemployment to be down around 7.9% when the elction comes around. That sounds like a lot, but comparitiive to what he was handed that is a startling improvement that can't be denied.
Another thing, is that there is really no strong candidate within the Republican or Tea Party ranks that can beat him. And chances are that both will have their own seperate canidate (splitting the vote), unless they can come to some agreement of a cnadidate. The Republicans are in a stalemate becuase they need independent voters, but they probably won't get them, because who ever they nominate will have to placate to Tea Party's to keep their vote. Basically, they need their base to win, but if they get their base, they lose (cause they'll have to go too extreme for them to win the independent vote). So under those circumstances, even if unemployment would be around let's say 8.3%, Obama would still have more than a 50-50 shot of being re-elected.
"The Policy" of presidents rarely changes, what NL4E doesn't get I'm afraid, is that were not talking about a policy change, were talking about a change of strategy. Under Bush the focus was on IRAQ and barely on Afqhanistan, while under Obama the focus has become Afghanistan and Pakistan. Under the first few months of Obama therewere more predator drone attacks on Pakistan, than during the entire 8 years under Bush.
Bush deserves about as much credit for finding Osama, as Andrew Johnson for ending the civil war. He's a guy who did some things, but in the end just messed up. His policy wasn't any different from other presidents, but his strategies were. And for changing strategies, Obama deserves the lion share of the credit, while Bush probably doesn't deserve more than 5% of it. To argue any different is just doing revisionist history.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on May 2, 2011 18:09:39 GMT -5
I will agree with NL4E on this point, for anyone who thinks that this will mean anything around election time, you're sadly mistaken. Politics/approval ratings/polls, don't matter. There's no such thing as a political game changer a year and half away from an election. Politics, just like the news, goes through cycles. Were not around election time, we're a year and a half away. Of course if this happened around an election Obama would use this, but it's not around an election. The only poll that really matter is the one taken on election day. NL4E is also right that Obama will not win a 8.9% unemployment rate, but tha has steadily been declining over the past few months, and many econimists have it as continuing to decline. So unless the econonmy takes a turn for the worst, he'll probably be re-elected. The projection is for unemployment to be down around 7.9% when the elction comes around. That sounds like a lot, but comparitiive to what he was handed that is a startling improvement that can't be denied. Another thing, is that there is really no strong candidate within the Republican or Tea Party ranks that can beat him. And chances are that both will have their own seperate canidate (splitting the vote), unless they can come to some agreement of a cnadidate. The Republicans are in a stalemate becuase they need independent voters, but they probably won't get them, because who ever they nominate will have to placate to Tea Party's to keep their vote. Basically, they need their base to win, but if they get their base, they lose (cause they'll have to go too extreme for them to win the independent vote). So under those circumstances, even if unemployment would be around let's say 8.3%, Obama would still have more than a 50-50 shot of being re-elected. "The Policy" of presidents rarely changes, what NL4E doesn't get I'm afraid, is that were not talking about a policy change, were talking about a change of strategy. Under Bush the focus was on IRAQ and barely on Afqhanistan, while under Obama the focus has become Afghanistan and Pakistan. Under the first few months of Obama therewere more predator drone attacks on Pakistan, than during the entire 8 years under Bush. Bush deserves about as much credit for finding Osama, as Andrew Johnson for ending the civil war. He's a guy who did some things, but in the end just messed up. His policy wasn't any different from other presidents, but his strategies were. And for changing strategies, Obama deserves the lion share of the credit, while Bush probably doesn't deserve more than 5% of it. To argue any different is just doing revisionist history. couldn't agree with you more, though i must add one part to your first paragraph. obama will use it to show that he's tough on terrorism and that he was able to finish the job he set out to do. he's planning a significant troop withdrawal in afghanistan this coming summer, so there's that as well. if we get qaddafi soon (and we're close), it'd be hard to attack the president for his foreign affairs. whether or not all of this will affect the 2012 election, time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by bwilder on May 2, 2011 18:56:48 GMT -5
It doesn't matter who's fault it is. Obama can not win with unemployment at 8.9%. He would be voted out. This could easily be a repeat of the 1992 election. George H. W. Bush had foreign policy successes, and coming out of Desert Storm had approval ratings in the 80s, only to lose the election a year later due to the economy. "It's the economy, stupid!" Stop kidding yourselves. This has no implication for 2012. Once this rotates out of the news cycle, you'll see that I'm right. You're wrong. You HOPE it won't have implications because you're a Republican. Comparing Desert Storm (which lasted two days) with a ten year search and finally the death of America's worst mass murderer in history is a bad comparison. 9/11 still hasn't left the news cycle 10 years later... And the economy is Bush's fault. Prove otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by bwilder on May 2, 2011 18:59:55 GMT -5
Bush didn't do shit to get Bin Laden. His main focus was Hussein the whole time.
|
|