Osama Bin Laden is Dead

[kilpaba]

Maybe this is the wrong place for a sober assessment, but it was all that came up on my hub. I don’t mourn the man’s death, because I don’t believe all people are worthwhile having on this earth. He was certainly a net-negative addition to the human race.

But all that said, surely everyone can concede that in order to kill this man THOUSANDS of people, including many innocent people, were killed by both AQ and the US. To bring this one man to justice we had to kill thousands of innocents including women and children. We also engaged in multiple wars, violated other nations sovereignty and have taxed our children and grand children with our deficit war spending to finance it all. This is also excluding possible ‘blow-back’ future generations will have to deal with (refer to the success of Israeli operations on dampening terrorist activity and zeal).

Yes his particular death is a good thing, but this is at best a somber occasion recognizing that justice, in his case, has been served. As moral agents, though, we cannot in good conscious ignore all the collateral damage that went into bringing his death to pass. Was it worth it? Perhaps so, I honestly don’t know, but to paraphrase an old phrase ‘There is no such thing as a good or just war’.

[ZEB]

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Maybe this is the wrong place for a sober assessment, but it was all that came up on my hub. I don’t mourn the man’s death, because I don’t believe all people are worthwhile having on this earth. He was certainly a net-negative addition to the human race.

But all that said, surely everyone can concede that in order to kill this man THOUSANDS of people, including many innocent people, were killed by both AQ and the US. To bring this one man to justice we had to kill thousands of innocents including women and children. We also engaged in multiple wars, violated other nations sovereignty and have taxed our children and grand children with our deficit war spending to finance it all. This is also excluding possible ‘blow-back’ future generations will have to deal with (refer to the success of Israeli operations on dampening terrorist activity and zeal).

Yes his particular death is a good thing, but this is at best a somber occasion recognizing that justice, in his case, has been served. As moral agents, though, we cannot in good conscious ignore all the collateral damage that went into bringing his death to pass. Was it worth it? Perhaps so, I honestly don’t know, but to paraphrase an old phrase ‘There is no such thing as a good or just war’.[/quote]

Then the alternative is to allow those like Bin Laden a free reign to kill when and as they see fit. Of course there will always be collateral damage in war. Look at World War Two. Many innocent people died when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the result was no more American lives had to be sacrificed in order to end that war.

It’s true that war should be a last result when all else fails. But I see no alternative when we were attacked on our own shores. People like Bin Laden must be destroyed so that, in the long run there will be less killing.

[LankyMofo]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Maybe this is the wrong place for a sober assessment, but it was all that came up on my hub. I don’t mourn the man’s death, because I don’t believe all people are worthwhile having on this earth. He was certainly a net-negative addition to the human race.

But all that said, surely everyone can concede that in order to kill this man THOUSANDS of people, including many innocent people, were killed by both AQ and the US. To bring this one man to justice we had to kill thousands of innocents including women and children. We also engaged in multiple wars, violated other nations sovereignty and have taxed our children and grand children with our deficit war spending to finance it all. This is also excluding possible ‘blow-back’ future generations will have to deal with (refer to the success of Israeli operations on dampening terrorist activity and zeal).

Yes his particular death is a good thing, but this is at best a somber occasion recognizing that justice, in his case, has been served. As moral agents, though, we cannot in good conscious ignore all the collateral damage that went into bringing his death to pass. Was it worth it? Perhaps so, I honestly don’t know, but to paraphrase an old phrase ‘There is no such thing as a good or just war’.[/quote]

Then the alternative is to allow those like Bin Laden a free reign to kill when and as they see fit. Of course there will always be collateral damage in war. Look at World War Two. Many innocent people died when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the result was no more American lives had to be sacrificed in order to end that war.

It’s true that war should be a last result when all else fails. But I see no alternative when we were attacked on our own shores. People like Bin Laden must be destroyed so that, in the long run there will be less killing.[/quote]

Agreed, the alternative to not killing him is unacceptable.

[smh23]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Maybe this is the wrong place for a sober assessment, but it was all that came up on my hub. I don’t mourn the man’s death, because I don’t believe all people are worthwhile having on this earth. He was certainly a net-negative addition to the human race.

But all that said, surely everyone can concede that in order to kill this man THOUSANDS of people, including many innocent people, were killed by both AQ and the US. To bring this one man to justice we had to kill thousands of innocents including women and children. We also engaged in multiple wars, violated other nations sovereignty and have taxed our children and grand children with our deficit war spending to finance it all. This is also excluding possible ‘blow-back’ future generations will have to deal with (refer to the success of Israeli operations on dampening terrorist activity and zeal).

Yes his particular death is a good thing, but this is at best a somber occasion recognizing that justice, in his case, has been served. As moral agents, though, we cannot in good conscious ignore all the collateral damage that went into bringing his death to pass. Was it worth it? Perhaps so, I honestly don’t know, but to paraphrase an old phrase ‘There is no such thing as a good or just war’.[/quote]

Then the alternative is to allow those like Bin Laden a free reign to kill when and as they see fit. Of course there will always be collateral damage in war. Look at World War Two. Many innocent people died when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the result was no more American lives had to be sacrificed in order to end that war.

It’s true that war should be a last result when all else fails. But I see no alternative when we were attacked on our own shores. People like Bin Laden must be destroyed so that, in the long run there will be less killing.[/quote]

I think the mistake is to assume that the turn of events described in kilpaba’s post was an inevitable consequence of visiting justice on Osama Bin Laden. We can certainly imagine a scenario, perhaps under a different president in 2001, in which the United States would have had no occupying military presence in the Middle East over the course of the last decade.

In such an alternate history, would Bin Laden have been brought to justice later? Sooner? Not at all? Any answer given is little more than mere hypothesis; the point stands, however, that the slaughter described in kilpaba’s post was not “necessary” in the way that, to use a slightly different WWII example, the US response to Pearl Harbor was necessary–i.e., if we were to revisit the choices and developments to which we owe our current geopolitical situation, we would find that reasonable alternatives existed in a way that they didn’t in December 1941.

Consequently, I would agree with kilpaba in saying that, though we should all be glad to see justice brought upon an evil and dangerous enemy of our very way of life, we should not forget that the development is a single tile in a far more somber and morbid mosaic. That is not to belittle the accomplishment, but to temper the reaction lest we dishonor the countless faces of the innocent dead.

[ZEB]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Maybe this is the wrong place for a sober assessment, but it was all that came up on my hub. I don’t mourn the man’s death, because I don’t believe all people are worthwhile having on this earth. He was certainly a net-negative addition to the human race.

But all that said, surely everyone can concede that in order to kill this man THOUSANDS of people, including many innocent people, were killed by both AQ and the US. To bring this one man to justice we had to kill thousands of innocents including women and children. We also engaged in multiple wars, violated other nations sovereignty and have taxed our children and grand children with our deficit war spending to finance it all. This is also excluding possible ‘blow-back’ future generations will have to deal with (refer to the success of Israeli operations on dampening terrorist activity and zeal).

Yes his particular death is a good thing, but this is at best a somber occasion recognizing that justice, in his case, has been served. As moral agents, though, we cannot in good conscious ignore all the collateral damage that went into bringing his death to pass. Was it worth it? Perhaps so, I honestly don’t know, but to paraphrase an old phrase ‘There is no such thing as a good or just war’.[/quote]

Then the alternative is to allow those like Bin Laden a free reign to kill when and as they see fit. Of course there will always be collateral damage in war. Look at World War Two. Many innocent people died when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the result was no more American lives had to be sacrificed in order to end that war.

It’s true that war should be a last result when all else fails. But I see no alternative when we were attacked on our own shores. People like Bin Laden must be destroyed so that, in the long run there will be less killing.[/quote]

I think the mistake is to assume that the turn of events described in kilpaba’s post was an inevitable consequence of visiting justice on Osama Bin Laden. We can certainly imagine a scenario, perhaps under a different president in 2001, in which the United States would have had no occupying military presence in the Middle East over the course of the last decade.

In such an alternate history, would Bin Laden have been brought to justice later? Sooner? Not at all? Any answer given is little more than mere hypothesis; the point stands, however, that the slaughter described in kilpaba’s post was not “necessary” in the way that, to use a slightly different WWII example, the US response to Pearl Harbor was necessary–i.e., if we were to revisit the choices and developments to which we owe our current geopolitical situation, we would find that reasonable alternatives existed in a way that they didn’t in December 1941.

Consequently, I would agree with kilpaba in saying that, though we should all be glad to see justice brought upon an evil and dangerous enemy of our very way of life, we should not forget that the development is a single tile in a far more somber and morbid mosaic. That is not to belittle the accomplishment, but to temper the reaction lest we dishonor the countless faces of the innocent dead.[/quote]

It’s very easy to say in hindsight that there could have been less collateral damage. But the reality of the situation dictates that there is no gain in harming innocent people. And there is no question in my mind that we have acted in a way that is beyond reproach when it came to the pursuit of evil doers. Unfortunately in that pursuit there is no reasonable way to protect everyone.

One more point worthy of mention, it seems to me that it is the people’s responsibility first to remove any crazed dictator, religious or otherwise, who would put them in harms way with such a super power as the USA.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Yes, precisely, what is versus what should be are not the point. I hold you statists to your own terms of justice. That is the only way it can be…because of how you say, circumstances.[/quote]

Nope, justice can exist outside of a civil or criminal court conviction - even “statists” recognize that. There is nothing that says a court conviction is the only form of justice - it is one, but not the only.

Thanks for playing. [/quote]

In a country that supposedly believes in due process there is only one way to bring about justice.

Thanks for playing.

[smh23]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Maybe this is the wrong place for a sober assessment, but it was all that came up on my hub. I don’t mourn the man’s death, because I don’t believe all people are worthwhile having on this earth. He was certainly a net-negative addition to the human race.

But all that said, surely everyone can concede that in order to kill this man THOUSANDS of people, including many innocent people, were killed by both AQ and the US. To bring this one man to justice we had to kill thousands of innocents including women and children. We also engaged in multiple wars, violated other nations sovereignty and have taxed our children and grand children with our deficit war spending to finance it all. This is also excluding possible ‘blow-back’ future generations will have to deal with (refer to the success of Israeli operations on dampening terrorist activity and zeal).

Yes his particular death is a good thing, but this is at best a somber occasion recognizing that justice, in his case, has been served. As moral agents, though, we cannot in good conscious ignore all the collateral damage that went into bringing his death to pass. Was it worth it? Perhaps so, I honestly don’t know, but to paraphrase an old phrase ‘There is no such thing as a good or just war’.[/quote]

Then the alternative is to allow those like Bin Laden a free reign to kill when and as they see fit. Of course there will always be collateral damage in war. Look at World War Two. Many innocent people died when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the result was no more American lives had to be sacrificed in order to end that war.

It’s true that war should be a last result when all else fails. But I see no alternative when we were attacked on our own shores. People like Bin Laden must be destroyed so that, in the long run there will be less killing.[/quote]

I think the mistake is to assume that the turn of events described in kilpaba’s post was an inevitable consequence of visiting justice on Osama Bin Laden. We can certainly imagine a scenario, perhaps under a different president in 2001, in which the United States would have had no occupying military presence in the Middle East over the course of the last decade.

In such an alternate history, would Bin Laden have been brought to justice later? Sooner? Not at all? Any answer given is little more than mere hypothesis; the point stands, however, that the slaughter described in kilpaba’s post was not “necessary” in the way that, to use a slightly different WWII example, the US response to Pearl Harbor was necessary–i.e., if we were to revisit the choices and developments to which we owe our current geopolitical situation, we would find that reasonable alternatives existed in a way that they didn’t in December 1941.

Consequently, I would agree with kilpaba in saying that, though we should all be glad to see justice brought upon an evil and dangerous enemy of our very way of life, we should not forget that the development is a single tile in a far more somber and morbid mosaic. That is not to belittle the accomplishment, but to temper the reaction lest we dishonor the countless faces of the innocent dead.[/quote]

It’s very easy to say in hindsight that there could have been less collateral damage. But the reality of the situation dictates that there is no gain in harming innocent people. And there is no question in my mind that we have acted in a way that is beyond reproach when it came to the pursuit of evil doers. Unfortunately in that pursuit there is no reasonable way to protect everyone.

One more point worthy of mention, it seems to me that it is the people’s responsibility first to remove any crazed dictator, religious or otherwise, who would put them in harms way with such a super power as the USA.[/quote]

I don’t disagree. I simply think that, whether it was avoidable or not, the collateral damage should temper the revelry. Bin Laden’s demise is a truly good and hopeful chapter, but the book itself is full of terrible shit that happened to people of all nations, including Americans.

[ZEB]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Maybe this is the wrong place for a sober assessment, but it was all that came up on my hub. I don’t mourn the man’s death, because I don’t believe all people are worthwhile having on this earth. He was certainly a net-negative addition to the human race.

But all that said, surely everyone can concede that in order to kill this man THOUSANDS of people, including many innocent people, were killed by both AQ and the US. To bring this one man to justice we had to kill thousands of innocents including women and children. We also engaged in multiple wars, violated other nations sovereignty and have taxed our children and grand children with our deficit war spending to finance it all. This is also excluding possible ‘blow-back’ future generations will have to deal with (refer to the success of Israeli operations on dampening terrorist activity and zeal).

Yes his particular death is a good thing, but this is at best a somber occasion recognizing that justice, in his case, has been served. As moral agents, though, we cannot in good conscious ignore all the collateral damage that went into bringing his death to pass. Was it worth it? Perhaps so, I honestly don’t know, but to paraphrase an old phrase ‘There is no such thing as a good or just war’.[/quote]

Then the alternative is to allow those like Bin Laden a free reign to kill when and as they see fit. Of course there will always be collateral damage in war. Look at World War Two. Many innocent people died when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the result was no more American lives had to be sacrificed in order to end that war.

It’s true that war should be a last result when all else fails. But I see no alternative when we were attacked on our own shores. People like Bin Laden must be destroyed so that, in the long run there will be less killing.[/quote]

I think the mistake is to assume that the turn of events described in kilpaba’s post was an inevitable consequence of visiting justice on Osama Bin Laden. We can certainly imagine a scenario, perhaps under a different president in 2001, in which the United States would have had no occupying military presence in the Middle East over the course of the last decade.

In such an alternate history, would Bin Laden have been brought to justice later? Sooner? Not at all? Any answer given is little more than mere hypothesis; the point stands, however, that the slaughter described in kilpaba’s post was not “necessary” in the way that, to use a slightly different WWII example, the US response to Pearl Harbor was necessary–i.e., if we were to revisit the choices and developments to which we owe our current geopolitical situation, we would find that reasonable alternatives existed in a way that they didn’t in December 1941.

Consequently, I would agree with kilpaba in saying that, though we should all be glad to see justice brought upon an evil and dangerous enemy of our very way of life, we should not forget that the development is a single tile in a far more somber and morbid mosaic. That is not to belittle the accomplishment, but to temper the reaction lest we dishonor the countless faces of the innocent dead.[/quote]

It’s very easy to say in hindsight that there could have been less collateral damage. But the reality of the situation dictates that there is no gain in harming innocent people. And there is no question in my mind that we have acted in a way that is beyond reproach when it came to the pursuit of evil doers. Unfortunately in that pursuit there is no reasonable way to protect everyone.

One more point worthy of mention, it seems to me that it is the people’s responsibility first to remove any crazed dictator, religious or otherwise, who would put them in harms way with such a super power as the USA.[/quote]

I don’t disagree. I simply think that, whether it was avoidable or not, the collateral damage should temper the revelry. Bin Laden’s demise is a truly good and hopeful chapter, but the book itself is full of terrible shit that happened to people of all nations, including Americans.[/quote]

But maybe, just maybe that’s why we should be rejoicing. If the end of Bin Laden could possibly mean the diminished capacity of the terrorists I think that’s something to celebrate, don’t you?

In other words, I am not so much celebrating a mans death, as I am celebrating the potential for less deaths through this mans demise.

No?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

In a country that supposedly believes in due process there is only one way to bring about justice.[/quote]

Well, no. That is one way to bring about criminal justice for those with constitutional rights. That wasn’t the case with OBL.

Suddenly, though, for the sole reason to be contrarian (for attention, of course, like usual), you’re suddenly a big, big fan that someone has to go through the state apparaus for justice, even those self-admitted “statists” have told you that they believe no such thing.

Lifty that statist! See, now you can sleep easy every time you pay those taxes on April 15. You’re no anarchist - you just play one to get attention from adults who would otherwise ignore what you have to say.

[smh23]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Maybe this is the wrong place for a sober assessment, but it was all that came up on my hub. I don’t mourn the man’s death, because I don’t believe all people are worthwhile having on this earth. He was certainly a net-negative addition to the human race.

But all that said, surely everyone can concede that in order to kill this man THOUSANDS of people, including many innocent people, were killed by both AQ and the US. To bring this one man to justice we had to kill thousands of innocents including women and children. We also engaged in multiple wars, violated other nations sovereignty and have taxed our children and grand children with our deficit war spending to finance it all. This is also excluding possible ‘blow-back’ future generations will have to deal with (refer to the success of Israeli operations on dampening terrorist activity and zeal).

Yes his particular death is a good thing, but this is at best a somber occasion recognizing that justice, in his case, has been served. As moral agents, though, we cannot in good conscious ignore all the collateral damage that went into bringing his death to pass. Was it worth it? Perhaps so, I honestly don’t know, but to paraphrase an old phrase ‘There is no such thing as a good or just war’.[/quote]

Then the alternative is to allow those like Bin Laden a free reign to kill when and as they see fit. Of course there will always be collateral damage in war. Look at World War Two. Many innocent people died when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the result was no more American lives had to be sacrificed in order to end that war.

It’s true that war should be a last result when all else fails. But I see no alternative when we were attacked on our own shores. People like Bin Laden must be destroyed so that, in the long run there will be less killing.[/quote]

I think the mistake is to assume that the turn of events described in kilpaba’s post was an inevitable consequence of visiting justice on Osama Bin Laden. We can certainly imagine a scenario, perhaps under a different president in 2001, in which the United States would have had no occupying military presence in the Middle East over the course of the last decade.

In such an alternate history, would Bin Laden have been brought to justice later? Sooner? Not at all? Any answer given is little more than mere hypothesis; the point stands, however, that the slaughter described in kilpaba’s post was not “necessary” in the way that, to use a slightly different WWII example, the US response to Pearl Harbor was necessary–i.e., if we were to revisit the choices and developments to which we owe our current geopolitical situation, we would find that reasonable alternatives existed in a way that they didn’t in December 1941.

Consequently, I would agree with kilpaba in saying that, though we should all be glad to see justice brought upon an evil and dangerous enemy of our very way of life, we should not forget that the development is a single tile in a far more somber and morbid mosaic. That is not to belittle the accomplishment, but to temper the reaction lest we dishonor the countless faces of the innocent dead.[/quote]

It’s very easy to say in hindsight that there could have been less collateral damage. But the reality of the situation dictates that there is no gain in harming innocent people. And there is no question in my mind that we have acted in a way that is beyond reproach when it came to the pursuit of evil doers. Unfortunately in that pursuit there is no reasonable way to protect everyone.

One more point worthy of mention, it seems to me that it is the people’s responsibility first to remove any crazed dictator, religious or otherwise, who would put them in harms way with such a super power as the USA.[/quote]

I don’t disagree. I simply think that, whether it was avoidable or not, the collateral damage should temper the revelry. Bin Laden’s demise is a truly good and hopeful chapter, but the book itself is full of terrible shit that happened to people of all nations, including Americans.[/quote]

In other words, I am not so much celebrating a mans death, as I am celebrating the potential for less deaths through this mans demise.
[/quote]

As am I, while keeping in my thoughts the dead Americans, Brits, Spaniards, Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Christians, Jews, and Muslims without whom this piece of truly good news would not exist.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Justice is not granted by any state. Only a slave would accept that it were.[/quote]

But you said a conviction was needed.
[/quote]

A conviction need come from the state?

Why should only they have that right?

Should not the victims families have a right to justice?[/quote]

Then I am confused, because surely he is convicted in the hearts and minds of the victims, no?

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Justice is not granted by any state. Only a slave would accept that it were.[/quote]

But you said a conviction was needed.
[/quote]

A conviction need come from the state?

Why should only they have that right?

Should not the victims families have a right to justice?[/quote]

Then I am confused, because surely he is convicted in the hearts and minds of the victims, no?[/quote]

The victims don’t get to decide the conviction other wise there would never be a trial.

The victim nearly always presumes guilt.

[kilpaba]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Maybe this is the wrong place for a sober assessment, but it was all that came up on my hub. I don’t mourn the man’s death, because I don’t believe all people are worthwhile having on this earth. He was certainly a net-negative addition to the human race.

But all that said, surely everyone can concede that in order to kill this man THOUSANDS of people, including many innocent people, were killed by both AQ and the US. To bring this one man to justice we had to kill thousands of innocents including women and children. We also engaged in multiple wars, violated other nations sovereignty and have taxed our children and grand children with our deficit war spending to finance it all. This is also excluding possible ‘blow-back’ future generations will have to deal with (refer to the success of Israeli operations on dampening terrorist activity and zeal).

Yes his particular death is a good thing, but this is at best a somber occasion recognizing that justice, in his case, has been served. As moral agents, though, we cannot in good conscious ignore all the collateral damage that went into bringing his death to pass. Was it worth it? Perhaps so, I honestly don’t know, but to paraphrase an old phrase ‘There is no such thing as a good or just war’.[/quote]

Then the alternative is to allow those like Bin Laden a free reign to kill when and as they see fit. Of course there will always be collateral damage in war. Look at World War Two. Many innocent people died when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the result was no more American lives had to be sacrificed in order to end that war.

It’s true that war should be a last result when all else fails. But I see no alternative when we were attacked on our own shores. People like Bin Laden must be destroyed so that, in the long run there will be less killing.[/quote]

Perhaps it is the economist in me, but I can’t help looking at the CBA of our actions. As has been posted it certainly doesn’t mean multiple wars and bombing strikes were necessitated to track down Osama. Counter terrorism doesn’t have to mean large scale intractable wars that include nation building. I don’t have the figures in front of me, but if you total up all the people killed in 9/11 and then compare all the people killed in our war effort not counting the displaced, financially maligned, etc. it becomes a hard question to answer whether our actions were justified. We probably lost more Americans in the fight than in all the terrorist attacks in our nation’s history combined by some margin.

I think there is also the question of whether this is an effective strategy to take in the first place. The Israeli’s have had a long standing and infamously brutal policy towards terrorist groups (assassinating leaders of past terrorist action, etc.) and even many Israeli’s have begun questioning the effects of these actions. By all accounts all it has done is make the surviving groups MORE virulent and hard lined. You may kill off one group, but if you cause 2 others to form with even more radical views it isn’t clear you have done yourself any good. Clearly Israel is not hurting for enemies at the moment. Is this really the counter terrorism strategy we should be cheering?

My point is that while I am not saddened by Osama’s passing, in fact all told I am glad to see the man go, we should all have A LOT of reservation about the actions we took to get to this point. Hindsight is 20/20, but when you look at the destruction unleashed on the world as a result of our man hunt and counter-terrorism effort it makes me wonder if the cure isn’t worse than the disease. To end another post with a classic saying, I will leave it with this Chinese proverb “Often the fire we light for our enemies burns ourselves worse than them”.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Justice is not granted by any state. Only a slave would accept that it were.[/quote]

But you said a conviction was needed.
[/quote]

A conviction need come from the state?

Why should only they have that right?

Should not the victims families have a right to justice?[/quote]

Then I am confused, because surely he is convicted in the hearts and minds of the victims, no?[/quote]

The victims don’t get to decide the conviction other wise there would never be a trial.

The victim nearly always presumes guilt.[/quote]

So then, a conviction how and by whom?

[LankyMofo]

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Maybe this is the wrong place for a sober assessment, but it was all that came up on my hub. I don’t mourn the man’s death, because I don’t believe all people are worthwhile having on this earth. He was certainly a net-negative addition to the human race.

But all that said, surely everyone can concede that in order to kill this man THOUSANDS of people, including many innocent people, were killed by both AQ and the US. To bring this one man to justice we had to kill thousands of innocents including women and children. We also engaged in multiple wars, violated other nations sovereignty and have taxed our children and grand children with our deficit war spending to finance it all. This is also excluding possible ‘blow-back’ future generations will have to deal with (refer to the success of Israeli operations on dampening terrorist activity and zeal).

Yes his particular death is a good thing, but this is at best a somber occasion recognizing that justice, in his case, has been served. As moral agents, though, we cannot in good conscious ignore all the collateral damage that went into bringing his death to pass. Was it worth it? Perhaps so, I honestly don’t know, but to paraphrase an old phrase ‘There is no such thing as a good or just war’.[/quote]

Then the alternative is to allow those like Bin Laden a free reign to kill when and as they see fit. Of course there will always be collateral damage in war. Look at World War Two. Many innocent people died when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the result was no more American lives had to be sacrificed in order to end that war.

It’s true that war should be a last result when all else fails. But I see no alternative when we were attacked on our own shores. People like Bin Laden must be destroyed so that, in the long run there will be less killing.[/quote]

Perhaps it is the economist in me, but I can’t help looking at the CBA of our actions. As has been posted it certainly doesn’t mean multiple wars and bombing strikes were necessitated to track down Osama. Counter terrorism doesn’t have to mean large scale intractable wars that include nation building. I don’t have the figures in front of me, but if you total up all the people killed in 9/11 and then compare all the people killed in our war effort not counting the displaced, financially maligned, etc. it becomes a hard question to answer whether our actions were justified. We probably lost more Americans in the fight than in all the terrorist attacks in our nation’s history combined by some margin. [/quote]

Ah, but you’re comparison is irrelevant. We shouldn’t be comparing the deaths that occurred on 9/11 to the deaths that occurred by result of our invasion of the middle east, we should be comparing the deaths that resulted by our invasion of the middle east with the deaths that would have occurred if we did not invade the middle east. That’s the only comparison that matters. That’s the opportunity cost (for the economist in you :)).

[smh23]

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Maybe this is the wrong place for a sober assessment, but it was all that came up on my hub. I don’t mourn the man’s death, because I don’t believe all people are worthwhile having on this earth. He was certainly a net-negative addition to the human race.

But all that said, surely everyone can concede that in order to kill this man THOUSANDS of people, including many innocent people, were killed by both AQ and the US. To bring this one man to justice we had to kill thousands of innocents including women and children. We also engaged in multiple wars, violated other nations sovereignty and have taxed our children and grand children with our deficit war spending to finance it all. This is also excluding possible ‘blow-back’ future generations will have to deal with (refer to the success of Israeli operations on dampening terrorist activity and zeal).

Yes his particular death is a good thing, but this is at best a somber occasion recognizing that justice, in his case, has been served. As moral agents, though, we cannot in good conscious ignore all the collateral damage that went into bringing his death to pass. Was it worth it? Perhaps so, I honestly don’t know, but to paraphrase an old phrase ‘There is no such thing as a good or just war’.[/quote]

Then the alternative is to allow those like Bin Laden a free reign to kill when and as they see fit. Of course there will always be collateral damage in war. Look at World War Two. Many innocent people died when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the result was no more American lives had to be sacrificed in order to end that war.

It’s true that war should be a last result when all else fails. But I see no alternative when we were attacked on our own shores. People like Bin Laden must be destroyed so that, in the long run there will be less killing.[/quote]

Perhaps it is the economist in me, but I can’t help looking at the CBA of our actions. As has been posted it certainly doesn’t mean multiple wars and bombing strikes were necessitated to track down Osama. Counter terrorism doesn’t have to mean large scale intractable wars that include nation building. I don’t have the figures in front of me, but if you total up all the people killed in 9/11 and then compare all the people killed in our war effort not counting the displaced, financially maligned, etc. it becomes a hard question to answer whether our actions were justified. We probably lost more Americans in the fight than in all the terrorist attacks in our nation’s history combined by some margin. [/quote]

we should be comparing the deaths that resulted by our invasion of the middle east with the deaths that would have occurred if we did not invade the middle east.[/quote]

The latter number is unknowable, because it doesn’t exist, and therefore it cannot be used in a comparison.

If one were to forced to make an educated guess, however, it would be hard to dream up a scenario in which more people would have died in the absence of the wars.

[LankyMofo]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Maybe this is the wrong place for a sober assessment, but it was all that came up on my hub. I don’t mourn the man’s death, because I don’t believe all people are worthwhile having on this earth. He was certainly a net-negative addition to the human race.

But all that said, surely everyone can concede that in order to kill this man THOUSANDS of people, including many innocent people, were killed by both AQ and the US. To bring this one man to justice we had to kill thousands of innocents including women and children. We also engaged in multiple wars, violated other nations sovereignty and have taxed our children and grand children with our deficit war spending to finance it all. This is also excluding possible ‘blow-back’ future generations will have to deal with (refer to the success of Israeli operations on dampening terrorist activity and zeal).

Yes his particular death is a good thing, but this is at best a somber occasion recognizing that justice, in his case, has been served. As moral agents, though, we cannot in good conscious ignore all the collateral damage that went into bringing his death to pass. Was it worth it? Perhaps so, I honestly don’t know, but to paraphrase an old phrase ‘There is no such thing as a good or just war’.[/quote]

Then the alternative is to allow those like Bin Laden a free reign to kill when and as they see fit. Of course there will always be collateral damage in war. Look at World War Two. Many innocent people died when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the result was no more American lives had to be sacrificed in order to end that war.

It’s true that war should be a last result when all else fails. But I see no alternative when we were attacked on our own shores. People like Bin Laden must be destroyed so that, in the long run there will be less killing.[/quote]

Perhaps it is the economist in me, but I can’t help looking at the CBA of our actions. As has been posted it certainly doesn’t mean multiple wars and bombing strikes were necessitated to track down Osama. Counter terrorism doesn’t have to mean large scale intractable wars that include nation building. I don’t have the figures in front of me, but if you total up all the people killed in 9/11 and then compare all the people killed in our war effort not counting the displaced, financially maligned, etc. it becomes a hard question to answer whether our actions were justified. We probably lost more Americans in the fight than in all the terrorist attacks in our nation’s history combined by some margin. [/quote]

we should be comparing the deaths that resulted by our invasion of the middle east with the deaths that would have occurred if we did not invade the middle east.[/quote]

The latter number is unknowable, because it doesn’t exist, and therefore it cannot be used in a comparison.

If one were to forced to make an educated guess, however, it would be hard to dream up a scenario in which more people would have died in the absence of the wars.[/quote]

If you don’t think the number can be estimated, that doesn’t make the earlier comparison any more useful.

That being said, I think our presence over there as well as the intelligence we gained made a significant difference in the # of attempts and success rates of terrorist attacks on US soil.

And besides, the alternative action of doing nothing is unacceptable once we’ve been attacked.

[smh23]

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Maybe this is the wrong place for a sober assessment, but it was all that came up on my hub. I don’t mourn the man’s death, because I don’t believe all people are worthwhile having on this earth. He was certainly a net-negative addition to the human race.

But all that said, surely everyone can concede that in order to kill this man THOUSANDS of people, including many innocent people, were killed by both AQ and the US. To bring this one man to justice we had to kill thousands of innocents including women and children. We also engaged in multiple wars, violated other nations sovereignty and have taxed our children and grand children with our deficit war spending to finance it all. This is also excluding possible ‘blow-back’ future generations will have to deal with (refer to the success of Israeli operations on dampening terrorist activity and zeal).

Yes his particular death is a good thing, but this is at best a somber occasion recognizing that justice, in his case, has been served. As moral agents, though, we cannot in good conscious ignore all the collateral damage that went into bringing his death to pass. Was it worth it? Perhaps so, I honestly don’t know, but to paraphrase an old phrase ‘There is no such thing as a good or just war’.[/quote]

Then the alternative is to allow those like Bin Laden a free reign to kill when and as they see fit. Of course there will always be collateral damage in war. Look at World War Two. Many innocent people died when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the result was no more American lives had to be sacrificed in order to end that war.

It’s true that war should be a last result when all else fails. But I see no alternative when we were attacked on our own shores. People like Bin Laden must be destroyed so that, in the long run there will be less killing.[/quote]

Perhaps it is the economist in me, but I can’t help looking at the CBA of our actions. As has been posted it certainly doesn’t mean multiple wars and bombing strikes were necessitated to track down Osama. Counter terrorism doesn’t have to mean large scale intractable wars that include nation building. I don’t have the figures in front of me, but if you total up all the people killed in 9/11 and then compare all the people killed in our war effort not counting the displaced, financially maligned, etc. it becomes a hard question to answer whether our actions were justified. We probably lost more Americans in the fight than in all the terrorist attacks in our nation’s history combined by some margin. [/quote]

we should be comparing the deaths that resulted by our invasion of the middle east with the deaths that would have occurred if we did not invade the middle east.[/quote]

The latter number is unknowable, because it doesn’t exist, and therefore it cannot be used in a comparison.

If one were to forced to make an educated guess, however, it would be hard to dream up a scenario in which more people would have died in the absence of the wars.[/quote]

If you don’t think the number can be estimated, that doesn’t make the earlier comparison any more useful.

That being said, I think our presence over there as well as the intelligence we gained made a significant difference in the # of attempts and success rates of terrorist attacks on US soil.

And besides, the alternative action of doing nothing is unacceptable once we’ve been attacked.[/quote]

No one ever suggested that we do nothing. Invasions and occupations are not the only means to intelligence gathering, and they not necessarily the best way to deal with a nationless enemy.

It doesn’t matter though because history is history. At least these past few days have had an air of hope to them.

[LankyMofo]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Maybe this is the wrong place for a sober assessment, but it was all that came up on my hub. I don’t mourn the man’s death, because I don’t believe all people are worthwhile having on this earth. He was certainly a net-negative addition to the human race.

But all that said, surely everyone can concede that in order to kill this man THOUSANDS of people, including many innocent people, were killed by both AQ and the US. To bring this one man to justice we had to kill thousands of innocents including women and children. We also engaged in multiple wars, violated other nations sovereignty and have taxed our children and grand children with our deficit war spending to finance it all. This is also excluding possible ‘blow-back’ future generations will have to deal with (refer to the success of Israeli operations on dampening terrorist activity and zeal).

Yes his particular death is a good thing, but this is at best a somber occasion recognizing that justice, in his case, has been served. As moral agents, though, we cannot in good conscious ignore all the collateral damage that went into bringing his death to pass. Was it worth it? Perhaps so, I honestly don’t know, but to paraphrase an old phrase ‘There is no such thing as a good or just war’.[/quote]

Then the alternative is to allow those like Bin Laden a free reign to kill when and as they see fit. Of course there will always be collateral damage in war. Look at World War Two. Many innocent people died when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the result was no more American lives had to be sacrificed in order to end that war.

It’s true that war should be a last result when all else fails. But I see no alternative when we were attacked on our own shores. People like Bin Laden must be destroyed so that, in the long run there will be less killing.[/quote]

Perhaps it is the economist in me, but I can’t help looking at the CBA of our actions. As has been posted it certainly doesn’t mean multiple wars and bombing strikes were necessitated to track down Osama. Counter terrorism doesn’t have to mean large scale intractable wars that include nation building. I don’t have the figures in front of me, but if you total up all the people killed in 9/11 and then compare all the people killed in our war effort not counting the displaced, financially maligned, etc. it becomes a hard question to answer whether our actions were justified. We probably lost more Americans in the fight than in all the terrorist attacks in our nation’s history combined by some margin. [/quote]

we should be comparing the deaths that resulted by our invasion of the middle east with the deaths that would have occurred if we did not invade the middle east.[/quote]

The latter number is unknowable, because it doesn’t exist, and therefore it cannot be used in a comparison.

If one were to forced to make an educated guess, however, it would be hard to dream up a scenario in which more people would have died in the absence of the wars.[/quote]

If you don’t think the number can be estimated, that doesn’t make the earlier comparison any more useful.

That being said, I think our presence over there as well as the intelligence we gained made a significant difference in the # of attempts and success rates of terrorist attacks on US soil.

And besides, the alternative action of doing nothing is unacceptable once we’ve been attacked.[/quote]

No one ever suggested that we do nothing. Invasions and occupations are not the only means to intelligence gathering, and they not necessarily the best way to deal with a nationless enemy.

It doesn’t matter though because history is history. At least these past few days have had an air of hope to them.[/quote]

Agreed. Hindsight is 20/20 and there were definitely some fuck ups along the way.

Besides, the last thing I’m qualified to do is have meaningful opinions on foreign relations.

[ZEB]

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Maybe this is the wrong place for a sober assessment, but it was all that came up on my hub. I don’t mourn the man’s death, because I don’t believe all people are worthwhile having on this earth. He was certainly a net-negative addition to the human race.

But all that said, surely everyone can concede that in order to kill this man THOUSANDS of people, including many innocent people, were killed by both AQ and the US. To bring this one man to justice we had to kill thousands of innocents including women and children. We also engaged in multiple wars, violated other nations sovereignty and have taxed our children and grand children with our deficit war spending to finance it all. This is also excluding possible ‘blow-back’ future generations will have to deal with (refer to the success of Israeli operations on dampening terrorist activity and zeal).

Yes his particular death is a good thing, but this is at best a somber occasion recognizing that justice, in his case, has been served. As moral agents, though, we cannot in good conscious ignore all the collateral damage that went into bringing his death to pass. Was it worth it? Perhaps so, I honestly don’t know, but to paraphrase an old phrase ‘There is no such thing as a good or just war’.[/quote]

Then the alternative is to allow those like Bin Laden a free reign to kill when and as they see fit. Of course there will always be collateral damage in war. Look at World War Two. Many innocent people died when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the result was no more American lives had to be sacrificed in order to end that war.

It’s true that war should be a last result when all else fails. But I see no alternative when we were attacked on our own shores. People like Bin Laden must be destroyed so that, in the long run there will be less killing.[/quote]

Perhaps it is the economist in me, but I can’t help looking at the CBA of our actions. As has been posted it certainly doesn’t mean multiple wars and bombing strikes were necessitated to track down Osama. Counter terrorism doesn’t have to mean large scale intractable wars that include nation building. I don’t have the figures in front of me, but if you total up all the people killed in 9/11 and then compare all the people killed in our war effort not counting the displaced, financially maligned, etc. it becomes a hard question to answer whether our actions were justified. We probably lost more Americans in the fight than in all the terrorist attacks in our nation’s history combined by some margin. [/quote]

we should be comparing the deaths that resulted by our invasion of the middle east with the deaths that would have occurred if we did not invade the middle east.[/quote]

The latter number is unknowable, because it doesn’t exist, and therefore it cannot be used in a comparison.

If one were to forced to make an educated guess, however, it would be hard to dream up a scenario in which more people would have died in the absence of the wars.[/quote]

If you don’t think the number can be estimated, that doesn’t make the earlier comparison any more useful.

That being said, I think our presence over there as well as the intelligence we gained made a significant difference in the # of attempts and success rates of terrorist attacks on US soil.

And besides, the alternative action of doing nothing is unacceptable once we’ve been attacked.[/quote]

No one ever suggested that we do nothing. Invasions and occupations are not the only means to intelligence gathering, and they not necessarily the best way to deal with a nationless enemy.

It doesn’t matter though because history is history. At least these past few days have had an air of hope to them.[/quote]

Agreed. Hindsight is 20/20 and there were definitely some fuck ups along the way.

Besides, the last thing I’m qualified to do is have meaningful opinions on foreign relations.[/quote]

If the truth be told that can be said about all of us. But we do have opinions (do we ever) and I’m sure many of these opinions are being expressed by those beyond T Nation.

I think the crux of it is if there is going to be an invasion of any kind, and there most certainly had to be, there are going to be innocent people harmed. That is just a sad reality of war.