T Nation

Obama Cancelled Bin Laden Raid 3 Times

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
This story is based on the testimony of a single unnamed source. No one knows whether it’s all or partially true. And it furthermore doesn’t matter in any way, because Osama Bin Laden is right now exactly where he should be–at the bottom of the fucking ocean.

More importantly, many of you are so partisan as to be essentially mindless. … to begrudge the man praise for killing OBL. It is that ability to see reality with clarity that we need more of.
[/quote]

The man, Mr. Obama, did not kill OBL. It took months of planning, the SEALs and their support teams, and intelligence gathered over months–in fact, years, since the presidency of GW Bush. That is the reality and clarity of which we need more.

The insight which one should have–whatever partisan leanings one might have–is that it is support for a large and ponderous military effort which achieves a singular goal. Mr. Obama did not kill OBL, thousands of dedicated men and women, inside and outside of the service, did. When that support is cut back–as it may with the impending sequestration–defense fails.

Mr. Obama fails on 2 counts: by jeopardizing (through leaks, for example, the security of those in the service, and by playing political bean-bag with the budget cliff that looms ahead and threatens the legitimate defense interests of the USA. “Spiking the ball” is only a sideshow, and a distasteful one at that.

Now that, sir, is clarity.[/quote]

I said: “to begrudge the man praise for killing OBL.” It should be obvious that I did not mean this phrase to be taken literally. And I agree with you that the mission itself was a success because of the work of thousands of people, many of them from previous administrations, etc.
[/quote]
Agreed, then.
What I contend further is that by using the event and the military as a political tool, he jeopardizes their security and ours.

You insist that “Obama handled it well.” What exactly did he handle? The planning? Emphatically, no, according to Panetta and Gates. (McRaven must remain silent on this.) The leaks? No. The photo op? Yes. Congratulations, Mr. President.

[quote]
As an addendum, I wonder if you would be just as “fair” in appropriating responsibility for our nation’s current economic woes? I mean that sincerely.[/quote]
I don’t know. Would you happen to have a list of direct actions by the Obama administration that has led to 4% GDP growth and 5% unemployment? So everything else becomes debatable, right?

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
This story is based on the testimony of a single unnamed source. No one knows whether it’s all or partially true. And it furthermore doesn’t matter in any way, because Osama Bin Laden is right now exactly where he should be–at the bottom of the fucking ocean.

More importantly, many of you are so partisan as to be essentially mindless. … to begrudge the man praise for killing OBL. It is that ability to see reality with clarity that we need more of.
[/quote]

The man, Mr. Obama, did not kill OBL. It took months of planning, the SEALs and their support teams, and intelligence gathered over months–in fact, years, since the presidency of GW Bush. That is the reality and clarity of which we need more.

The insight which one should have–whatever partisan leanings one might have–is that it is support for a large and ponderous military effort which achieves a singular goal. Mr. Obama did not kill OBL, thousands of dedicated men and women, inside and outside of the service, did. When that support is cut back–as it may with the impending sequestration–defense fails.

Mr. Obama fails on 2 counts: by jeopardizing (through leaks, for example, the security of those in the service, and by playing political bean-bag with the budget cliff that looms ahead and threatens the legitimate defense interests of the USA. “Spiking the ball” is only a sideshow, and a distasteful one at that.

Now that, sir, is clarity.[/quote]

I said: “to begrudge the man praise for killing OBL.” It should be obvious that I did not mean this phrase to be taken literally. And I agree with you that the mission itself was a success because of the work of thousands of people, many of them from previous administrations, etc.
[/quote]
Agreed, then.
What I contend further is that by using the event and the military as a political tool, he jeopardizes their security and ours.

You insist that “Obama handled it well.” What exactly did he handle? The planning? Emphatically, no, according to Panetta and Gates. (McRaven must remain silent on this.) The leaks? No. The photo op? Yes. Congratulations, Mr. President.

I would say that Obama did a good job of identifying those things that Bush was doing right–counter-terrorism, most notably–and choosing to continue or expand upon them. The proliferation of drone strikes has all but undone al-Qaeda. And though it was the obvious choice, it certainly couldn’t have been easy to order American combatants into a sovereign nuclear nation. As someone pointed out above, Obama would have been blamed in the event of failure.

Not sure what you’re trying to say re: the economy. My point was that presidents do not take control of blank slates or closed systems. Each one stands on the foundation–sometimes sturdy and sometimes crumbling–laid by the last. No educated person believes that OBL was killed because of one man or one administration. And no educated person believes that Obama destroyed our economy. He inherited both good and bad from his predecessors, and he should rightly be judged by what he’s done with his inheritance. Regarding foreign affairs, he’s done pretty damn well–well enough that Republican strategists have for the first time in recent history abandoned the “softy peacenik liberal” line of attack. That stands, regardless of how you think he’s done otherwise.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
This story is based on the testimony of a single unnamed source. No one knows whether it’s all or partially true. And it furthermore doesn’t matter in any way, because Osama Bin Laden is right now exactly where he should be–at the bottom of the fucking ocean.

More importantly, many of you are so partisan as to be essentially mindless. … to begrudge the man praise for killing OBL. It is that ability to see reality with clarity that we need more of.
[/quote]

The man, Mr. Obama, did not kill OBL. It took months of planning, the SEALs and their support teams, and intelligence gathered over months–in fact, years, since the presidency of GW Bush. That is the reality and clarity of which we need more.

The insight which one should have–whatever partisan leanings one might have–is that it is support for a large and ponderous military effort which achieves a singular goal. Mr. Obama did not kill OBL, thousands of dedicated men and women, inside and outside of the service, did. When that support is cut back–as it may with the impending sequestration–defense fails.

Mr. Obama fails on 2 counts: by jeopardizing (through leaks, for example, the security of those in the service, and by playing political bean-bag with the budget cliff that looms ahead and threatens the legitimate defense interests of the USA. “Spiking the ball” is only a sideshow, and a distasteful one at that.

Now that, sir, is clarity.[/quote]

I said: “to begrudge the man praise for killing OBL.” It should be obvious that I did not mean this phrase to be taken literally. And I agree with you that the mission itself was a success because of the work of thousands of people, many of them from previous administrations, etc.
[/quote]
Agreed, then.
What I contend further is that by using the event and the military as a political tool, he jeopardizes their security and ours.

You insist that “Obama handled it well.” What exactly did he handle? The planning? Emphatically, no, according to Panetta and Gates. (McRaven must remain silent on this.) The leaks? No. The photo op? Yes. Congratulations, Mr. President.

I would say that Obama did a good job of identifying those things that Bush was doing right–counter-terrorism, most notably–and choosing to continue or expand upon them. The proliferation of drone strikes has all but undone al-Qaeda. And though it was the obvious choice, it certainly couldn’t have been easy to order American combatants into a sovereign nuclear nation. As someone pointed out above, Obama would have been blamed in the event of failure.

Not sure what you’re trying to say re: the economy. My point was that presidents do not take control of blank slates or closed systems. Each one stands on the foundation–sometimes sturdy and sometimes crumbling–laid by the last. No educated person believes that OBL was killed because of one man or one administration. And no educated person believes that Obama destroyed our economy. He inherited both good and bad from his predecessors, and he should rightly be judged by what he’s done with his inheritance. Regarding foreign affairs, he’s done pretty damn well–well enough that Republican strategists have for the first time in recent history abandoned the “softy peacenik liberal” line of attack. That stands, regardless of how you think he’s done otherwise.[/quote]

“…The bird would cease and be as other birds
But that he knows in singing not to sing.
The question that he frames in all but words
Is what to make of a diminished thing.”

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I would say that Obama did a good job of identifying those things that Bush was doing right–counter-terrorism, most notably–and choosing to continue or expand upon them.

[/quote]

My memory must be playing tricks on me. I remember Obama trying to tie Bush’s hands by calling for GITMO to be shut down and waterboarding stopped. I remember him releasing numerous terrorists from GITMO who then went on to kill coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The reason Obama has increased drone strikes is that he can’t capture terrorists because he has no where to put them anymore and is not allowed to waterboard them etc. So now we can’t get information from them anymore.

Are you serious? He’s a laughing stock the world over - apology tours, reset buttons etc. He allowed the Russians to move into the ME and invade U.S. airspace with strategic nuclear bombers. Now they’re in talks with the Cubans to build nuclear launch sites there again ala 1960.

He stabbed Mubarak in the back and allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to take over in Egypt. He allows the Iranians to go sailing up the Suez and deliver arms to the Syrian regime. And Obama has been officially endorsed by Hugo Chavez after allowing Hezbollah to set up shop in Venezuela.

China tested a nuclear capable missile 35 miles off the coast of California from a submarine. Thanks to Obama the Taliban have an embassy in Qatar where they can engage in ‘peace talks’ with us. Obama says Israel doesn’t have a capital and ‘the status of Jerusalem has to be determined by negotiations between both parties,’ i.e. Israel and the Hamas/PA - a radical position which to my knowledge is not held by any other Western country. Obama led an unnecessary and counterproductive war against Libya. Also, more American servicemen and women died this year than in any other year since 9/11. Is that ‘pretty damn well’ or do you dispute the facts?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I would say that Obama did a good job of identifying those things that Bush was doing right–counter-terrorism, most notably–and choosing to continue or expand upon them.

[/quote]

My memory must be playing tricks on me. I remember Obama trying to tie Bush’s hands by calling for GITMO to be shut down and waterboarding stopped. I remember him releasing numerous terrorists from GITMO who then went on to kill coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The reason Obama has increased drone strikes is that he can’t capture terrorists because he has no where to put them anymore and is not allowed to waterboard them etc. So now we can’t get information from them anymore.

Are you serious? He’s a laughing stock the world over - apology tours, reset buttons etc. He allowed the Russians to move into the ME and invade U.S. airspace with strategic nuclear bombers. Now they’re in talks with the Cubans to build nuclear launch sites there again ala 1960.

He stabbed Mubarak in the back and allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to take over in Egypt. He allows the Iranians to go sailing up the Suez and deliver arms to the Syrian regime. And Obama has been officially endorsed by Hugo Chavez after allowing Hezbollah to set up shop in Venezuela.

China tested a nuclear capable missile 35 miles off the coast of California from a submarine. Thanks to Obama the Taliban have an embassy in Qatar where they can engage in ‘peace talks’ with us. Obama says Israel doesn’t have a capital and ‘the status of Jerusalem has to be determined by negotiations between both parties,’ i.e. Israel and the Hamas/PA - a radical position which to my knowledge is not held by any other Western country. Obama led an unnecessary and counterproductive war against Libya. Also, more American servicemen and women died this year than in any other year since 9/11. Is that ‘pretty damn well’ or do you dispute the facts?[/quote]

Obama has failed in the arena of foreign policy because he doesn’t torture people? Got it.

I stopped reading at “apology tours.” You seem to get a lot of your opinions from fringe blogs and idiotic youtube videos with ominous background music–the kind of shit that intelligent people laugh at, on both the right and the left. You are too partisan to engage in reasoned debate and it’s therefore not worth it.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Obama has failed in the arena of foreign policy because he doesn’t torture people? Got it.

[/quote]

He bombs them and their families instead with drones - they die, their families die and are maimed. That’s in start contrast to waterboarding someone like KSM to save lives.

Why? Why would you stop reading because I used the term “apology tour?” Can’t you address my criticism?

How so? You don’t seem to have an opinion or you are incapable/unwilling to express it. I have been honest, upfront and have given my true opinion as I always do. If you want to critique anything I have posted please refer to specific points I have raised.

[quote]
–the kind of shit that intelligent people laugh at, on both the right and the left. You are too partisan to engage in reasoned debate and it’s therefore not worth it. [/quote]

So you can’t/won’t address any of the legitimate criticisms I have raised regarding Obama’s foreign policy? How intellectually dishonest of you.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Obama has failed in the arena of foreign policy because he doesn’t torture people? Got it.

[/quote]

He bombs them and their families instead with drones - they die, their families die and are maimed. That’s in start contrast to waterboarding someone like KSM to save lives.

Why? Why would you stop reading because I used the term “apology tour?” Can’t you address my criticism?

How so? You don’t seem to have an opinion or you are incapable/unwilling to express it. I have been honest, upfront and have given my true opinion as I always do. If you want to critique anything I have posted please refer to specific points I have raised.

[quote]
–the kind of shit that intelligent people laugh at, on both the right and the left. You are too partisan to engage in reasoned debate and it’s therefore not worth it. [/quote]

So you can’t/won’t address any of the legitimate criticisms I have raised regarding Obama’s foreign policy? How intellectually dishonest of you.[/quote]

Agree to disagree, then. I’ve never seen an American president go on an apology tour, despite the fact that the Heritage Foundation really wants me to think otherwise. A few quotes taken out of context mean very little. They mean even less when they are put back into context. Here is a good article on that subject: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_apology_tour.html

And I do not want the greatest country in history–my country–to torture its enemies. Torture is the purview of Syria and al-Qaeda.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I would say that Obama did a good job of identifying those things that Bush was doing right–counter-terrorism, most notably–and choosing to continue or expand upon them.

[/quote]

My memory must be playing tricks on me. I remember Obama trying to tie Bush’s hands by calling for GITMO to be shut down and waterboarding stopped. I remember him releasing numerous terrorists from GITMO who then went on to kill coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The reason Obama has increased drone strikes is that he can’t capture terrorists because he has no where to put them anymore and is not allowed to waterboard them etc. So now we can’t get information from them anymore.

Are you serious? He’s a laughing stock the world over - apology tours, reset buttons etc. He allowed the Russians to move into the ME and invade U.S. airspace with strategic nuclear bombers. Now they’re in talks with the Cubans to build nuclear launch sites there again ala 1960.

He stabbed Mubarak in the back and allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to take over in Egypt. He allows the Iranians to go sailing up the Suez and deliver arms to the Syrian regime. And Obama has been officially endorsed by Hugo Chavez after allowing Hezbollah to set up shop in Venezuela.

China tested a nuclear capable missile 35 miles off the coast of California from a submarine. Thanks to Obama the Taliban have an embassy in Qatar where they can engage in ‘peace talks’ with us. Obama says Israel doesn’t have a capital and ‘the status of Jerusalem has to be determined by negotiations between both parties,’ i.e. Israel and the Hamas/PA - a radical position which to my knowledge is not held by any other Western country. Obama led an unnecessary and counterproductive war against Libya. Also, more American servicemen and women died this year than in any other year since 9/11. Is that ‘pretty damn well’ or do you dispute the facts?[/quote]

Logic and truth are forbidden in this forum, Sir!!!

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I would say that Obama did a good job of identifying those things that Bush was doing right–counter-terrorism, most notably–and choosing to continue or expand upon them.

[/quote]

My memory must be playing tricks on me. I remember Obama trying to tie Bush’s hands by calling for GITMO to be shut down and waterboarding stopped. I remember him releasing numerous terrorists from GITMO who then went on to kill coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The reason Obama has increased drone strikes is that he can’t capture terrorists because he has no where to put them anymore and is not allowed to waterboard them etc. So now we can’t get information from them anymore.

Are you serious? He’s a laughing stock the world over - apology tours, reset buttons etc. He allowed the Russians to move into the ME and invade U.S. airspace with strategic nuclear bombers. Now they’re in talks with the Cubans to build nuclear launch sites there again ala 1960.

He stabbed Mubarak in the back and allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to take over in Egypt. He allows the Iranians to go sailing up the Suez and deliver arms to the Syrian regime. And Obama has been officially endorsed by Hugo Chavez after allowing Hezbollah to set up shop in Venezuela.

China tested a nuclear capable missile 35 miles off the coast of California from a submarine. Thanks to Obama the Taliban have an embassy in Qatar where they can engage in ‘peace talks’ with us. Obama says Israel doesn’t have a capital and ‘the status of Jerusalem has to be determined by negotiations between both parties,’ i.e. Israel and the Hamas/PA - a radical position which to my knowledge is not held by any other Western country. Obama led an unnecessary and counterproductive war against Libya. Also, more American servicemen and women died this year than in any other year since 9/11. Is that ‘pretty damn well’ or do you dispute the facts?[/quote]

Obama has failed in the arena of foreign policy because he doesn’t torture people? Got it.

I stopped reading at “apology tours.” You seem to get a lot of your opinions from fringe blogs and idiotic youtube videos with ominous background music–the kind of shit that intelligent people laugh at, on both the right and the left. You are too partisan to engage in reasoned debate and it’s therefore not worth it. [/quote]

The failure is Obama’s squeamishness and inability to make tough decisions in case they might make him look uncool to the hippy left. That has painted him into a corner where he has to do a lot worse shit than indefinite detention and water boarding. I’m not a fan of the harsh interrogation techniques as I think them to be counter productive. But I do think that trying to capture and get information out of terrorists that could lead us to more was superior to relying entirely on drones to blow them up along with anyone who is near them. Because we have killed a good number of children to implement that policy.

Unlike the loony left it occurs to me that there is a morality to killing children in order to placate their concerns about the well being of terrorists. On the one hand it is ruthless political pandering and on the other it is bad strategy because we are loosing intelligence.

The simple fact is there is a war on and Obama is letting politics interfere with his decision making. Calling off the mission to kill Osama three or four times because a political adviser thought it would look uncool is a perfect example of that.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Obama has failed in the arena of foreign policy because he doesn’t torture people? Got it.

[/quote]

He bombs them and their families instead with drones - they die, their families die and are maimed. That’s in start contrast to waterboarding someone like KSM to save lives.

Why? Why would you stop reading because I used the term “apology tour?” Can’t you address my criticism?

How so? You don’t seem to have an opinion or you are incapable/unwilling to express it. I have been honest, upfront and have given my true opinion as I always do. If you want to critique anything I have posted please refer to specific points I have raised.

We’ve already tore apart that Washington post article. I’ll single in on this one quote here.

Mr. Obama told the French (the French!) that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apology

  1. An acknowledgment expressing regret or asking pardon for a fault or offense.

Obama admitted we have been arrogant to the French and expressed regret. That is an apology. nuff said.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Obama admitted we have been arrogant to the French and expressed regret. That is an apology. nuff said. [/quote]

You have been. Or do you not have the balls to admit your mistakes and move on?

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Agree to disagree, then.

[/quote]

That sounds more reasonable.

My point wasn’t whether he specifically apologised or even the apologetic tone of the speeches. It’s the speeches themselves and who they were made to and when and why. It was appeasement of the worst evil.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Obama admitted we have been arrogant to the French and expressed regret. That is an apology. nuff said. [/quote]

You have been. Or do you not have the balls to admit your mistakes and move on?[/quote]

“Been” what? You are making no sense. You are the one who is not admitting you are wrong. Obama spoke about the US in a way that no president ever has. He talked down the US. Maybe it was more of a pathetic, groveling suck up than apology. But it still was apologetic. It was certainly more of an apology than the Japanese have given for starting world war two and all the terrible things they did.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Obama admitted we have been arrogant to the French and expressed regret. That is an apology. nuff said. [/quote]

You have been. Or do you not have the balls to admit your mistakes and move on?[/quote]

“Been” what? You are making no sense. You are the one who is not admitting you are wrong. Obama spoke about the US in a way that no president ever has. He talked down the US. Maybe it was more of a pathetic, groveling suck up than apology. But it still was apologetic. It was certainly more of an apology than the Japanese have given for starting world war two and all the terrible things they did.

[/quote]

The USA has been arrogant. So what if he apologized

And Japan should do the same, but the fact they apparently haven’t kinda makes them dicks.

But wait…

[i]Toward the end of the Occupation of Japan, Emperor Hirohito let it be known to SCAP that he was prepared to apologize formally to Gen. MacArthur for Japan’s actions during World War IIâ??including an apology for the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

Patrick Lennox Tierney was an eye-witness on the day the Emperor came to SCAP headquarters to present this apology. When the emperor arrived, MacArthur refused to admit him or acknowledge him. When this happened, Tierney was in his office on the fifth floor of the Dai-Ichi Insurance Building in Tokyo. This was the same floor where MacArthur’s suite was situated.

The pivotal moment passed. Many years later, Tierney made an effort to explain his understanding of the significance of what he had personally witnessed: “Apology is a very important thing in Japan.”[8] Issues which might have been addressed were allowed to remain open, and unanticipated consequences have unfolded across the decades since then.

1957. Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke. “We view with deep regret the vexation we caused to the people of Burma in the war just passed. In a desire to atone, if only partially, for the pain suffered, Japan is prepared to meet fully and with goodwill its obligations for war reparations. The Japan of today is not the Japan of the past, but, as its Constitution indicates, is a peace-loving nation.”

1957. Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke. "It is my official duty, and my personal desire, to express to you and through you to the people of Australia, our heartfelt sorrow for what occurred in the war.

1965. Minister of Foreign Affairs Shiina Etsusaburo. “In our two countries’ long history there have been unfortunate times, it is truly regrettable and we are deeply remorseful” (Signing of the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea).

1972. Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka. “The Japanese side is keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war, and deeply reproaches itself. Further, the Japanese side reaffirms its position that it intends to realize the normalization of relations between the two countries from the stand of fully understanding ‘the three principles for the restoration of relations’ put forward by the Government of the People’s Republic of China. The Chinese side expresses its welcome for this” (Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People’s Republic of China).

1982. Prime Minister Zenko Suzuki. “I am painfully aware of Japan’s responsibility for inflicting serious damages [on Asian nations] during the past war.” “We need to recognize that there are criticisms that condemn [Japan’s occupation] as invasion” (Press Conference on Textbook issue).

1982. Chief Cabinet Secretary Kiichi Miyazawa. "1. The Japanese Government and the Japanese people are deeply aware of the fact that acts by our country in the past caused tremendous suffering and damage to the peoples of Asian countries, including the Republic of Korea (ROK) and China, and have followed the path of a pacifist state with remorse and determination that such acts must never be repeated. Japan has recognized, in the Japan-ROK Joint Communique, of 1965, that the ‘past relations are regrettable, and Japan feels deep remorse,’ and in the Japan-China Joint Communique, that Japan is ‘keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war and deeply reproaches itself.’ These statements confirm Japan’s remorse and determination which I stated above and this recognition has not changed at all to this day.

  1. This spirit in the Japan-ROK Joint Communique, and the Japan-China Joint Communique, naturally should also be respected in Japan’s school education and textbook authorization. Recently, however, the Republic of Korea, China, and others have been criticizing some descriptions in Japanese textbooks. From the perspective of building friendship and goodwill with neighboring countries, Japan will pay due attention to these criticisms and make corrections at the Government’s responsibility.

  2. To this end, in relation to future authorization of textbooks, the Government will revise the Guideline for Textbook Authorization after discussions in the Textbook Authorization and Research Council and give due consideration to the effect mentioned above. Regarding textbooks that have already been authorized, Government will take steps quickly to the same effect. As measures until then, the Minister of Education, Sports, Science and Culture will express his views and make sure that the idea mentioned in 2. Above is duly reflected in the places of education.

  3. Japan intends to continue to make efforts to promote mutual understanding and develop friendly and cooperative relations with neighboring countries and to contribute to the peace and stability of Asia and, in turn, of the world"(Statement on History Textbooks).

1984. Emperor Hirohito. “It is indeed regrettable that there was an unfortunate past between us for a period in this century and I believe that it should not be repeated again.” (Meeting with President Chun Doo Hwan.)

1985. Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone. “On June 6, 1945, when the UN Charter was signed in San Francisco, Japan was still fighting a senseless war with 40 nations. Since the end of the war, Japan has profoundly regretted the unleashing of rampant ultra nationalism and militarism and the war that brought great devastation to the people of many countries around the world and to our country as well” (Speech to the United Nations).[/i]

But yes, Japan never apologizes. Fucking nips, right?

(protip: I can dig up more of these going right up to this year)

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

I always thought the English were the masters of understatement. But this quote from Emperor Hirohito broadcast to the Japanese nation following Hiroshima and Nagasaki takes the cake:

‘The war situation has developed, not necessarily to Japan’s advantage…’

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I would say that Obama did a good job of identifying those things that Bush was doing right–counter-terrorism, most notably–and choosing to continue or expand upon them.

[/quote]

My memory must be playing tricks on me. I remember Obama trying to tie Bush’s hands by calling for GITMO to be shut down and waterboarding stopped. I remember him releasing numerous terrorists from GITMO who then went on to kill coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The reason Obama has increased drone strikes is that he can’t capture terrorists because he has no where to put them anymore and is not allowed to waterboard them etc. So now we can’t get information from them anymore.

Are you serious? He’s a laughing stock the world over - apology tours, reset buttons etc. He allowed the Russians to move into the ME and invade U.S. airspace with strategic nuclear bombers. Now they’re in talks with the Cubans to build nuclear launch sites there again ala 1960.

He stabbed Mubarak in the back and allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to take over in Egypt. He allows the Iranians to go sailing up the Suez and deliver arms to the Syrian regime. And Obama has been officially endorsed by Hugo Chavez after allowing Hezbollah to set up shop in Venezuela.

China tested a nuclear capable missile 35 miles off the coast of California from a submarine. Thanks to Obama the Taliban have an embassy in Qatar where they can engage in ‘peace talks’ with us. Obama says Israel doesn’t have a capital and ‘the status of Jerusalem has to be determined by negotiations between both parties,’ i.e. Israel and the Hamas/PA - a radical position which to my knowledge is not held by any other Western country. Obama led an unnecessary and counterproductive war against Libya. Also, more American servicemen and women died this year than in any other year since 9/11. Is that ‘pretty damn well’ or do you dispute the facts?[/quote]

Obama has failed in the arena of foreign policy because he doesn’t torture people? Got it.

I stopped reading at “apology tours.” You seem to get a lot of your opinions from fringe blogs and idiotic youtube videos with ominous background music–the kind of shit that intelligent people laugh at, on both the right and the left. You are too partisan to engage in reasoned debate and it’s therefore not worth it. [/quote]

The failure is Obama’s squeamishness and inability to make tough decisions in case they might make him look uncool to the hippy left. That has painted him into a corner where he has to do a lot worse shit than indefinite detention and water boarding. I’m not a fan of the harsh interrogation techniques as I think them to be counter productive. But I do think that trying to capture and get information out of terrorists that could lead us to more was superior to relying entirely on drones to blow them up along with anyone who is near them. Because we have killed a good number of children to implement that policy.

Unlike the loony left it occurs to me that there is a morality to killing children in order to placate their concerns about the well being of terrorists. On the one hand it is ruthless political pandering and on the other it is bad strategy because we are loosing intelligence.

The simple fact is there is a war on and Obama is letting politics interfere with his decision making. Calling off the mission to kill Osama three or four times because a political adviser thought it would look uncool is a perfect example of that. [/quote]

To reiterate, no one knows what actually happened. This story is based on the testimony of a single uncorroborated and unnamed source and has been denied by the administration. And even if there is truth in it, the details themselves–the only part that really matters–are entirely unknown. Your interpretation of the issue (if you really want to call it an issue) is based entirely on speculation and you should acknowledge it as such.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I would say that Obama did a good job of identifying those things that Bush was doing right–counter-terrorism, most notably–and choosing to continue or expand upon them.

[/quote]

My memory must be playing tricks on me. I remember Obama trying to tie Bush’s hands by calling for GITMO to be shut down and waterboarding stopped. I remember him releasing numerous terrorists from GITMO who then went on to kill coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The reason Obama has increased drone strikes is that he can’t capture terrorists because he has no where to put them anymore and is not allowed to waterboard them etc. So now we can’t get information from them anymore.

Are you serious? He’s a laughing stock the world over - apology tours, reset buttons etc. He allowed the Russians to move into the ME and invade U.S. airspace with strategic nuclear bombers. Now they’re in talks with the Cubans to build nuclear launch sites there again ala 1960.

He stabbed Mubarak in the back and allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to take over in Egypt. He allows the Iranians to go sailing up the Suez and deliver arms to the Syrian regime. And Obama has been officially endorsed by Hugo Chavez after allowing Hezbollah to set up shop in Venezuela.

China tested a nuclear capable missile 35 miles off the coast of California from a submarine. Thanks to Obama the Taliban have an embassy in Qatar where they can engage in ‘peace talks’ with us. Obama says Israel doesn’t have a capital and ‘the status of Jerusalem has to be determined by negotiations between both parties,’ i.e. Israel and the Hamas/PA - a radical position which to my knowledge is not held by any other Western country. Obama led an unnecessary and counterproductive war against Libya. Also, more American servicemen and women died this year than in any other year since 9/11. Is that ‘pretty damn well’ or do you dispute the facts?[/quote]

Obama has failed in the arena of foreign policy because he doesn’t torture people? Got it.

I stopped reading at “apology tours.” You seem to get a lot of your opinions from fringe blogs and idiotic youtube videos with ominous background music–the kind of shit that intelligent people laugh at, on both the right and the left. You are too partisan to engage in reasoned debate and it’s therefore not worth it. [/quote]

The failure is Obama’s squeamishness and inability to make tough decisions in case they might make him look uncool to the hippy left. That has painted him into a corner where he has to do a lot worse shit than indefinite detention and water boarding. I’m not a fan of the harsh interrogation techniques as I think them to be counter productive. But I do think that trying to capture and get information out of terrorists that could lead us to more was superior to relying entirely on drones to blow them up along with anyone who is near them. Because we have killed a good number of children to implement that policy.

Unlike the loony left it occurs to me that there is a morality to killing children in order to placate their concerns about the well being of terrorists. On the one hand it is ruthless political pandering and on the other it is bad strategy because we are loosing intelligence.

The simple fact is there is a war on and Obama is letting politics interfere with his decision making. Calling off the mission to kill Osama three or four times because a political adviser thought it would look uncool is a perfect example of that. [/quote]

To reiterate, no one knows what actually happened. This story is based on the testimony of a single uncorroborated and unnamed source and has been denied by the administration. And even if there is truth in it, the details themselves–the only part that really matters–are entirely unknown. Your interpretation of the issue (if you really want to call it an issue) is based entirely on speculation and you should acknowledge it as such.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I always thought the English were the masters of understatement. But this quote from Emperor Hirohito broadcast to the Japanese nation following Hiroshima and Nagasaki takes the cake:

‘The war situation has developed, not necessarily to Japan’s advantage…’[/quote]

That had me cracking up.