Normally I am against a lot of the decisions to use military force. I think we declare it a little to casually. That being said I see nothing wrong with what we did in this situation. These people were kidnapped.
You can argue all you want but the fact is that the Somalis decided to make enemies. They made their own beds. They have no one to blame for their deaths but themselves. You don’t go out and kidnap people and expect no repercussions.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Does anyone really doubt that LIFTI is doing drugs when he posts here?[/quote]
Doubt it? I’m hoping that he’s doing drugs at least then there’d be a logical reason for his inane posts.
[quote]TheTexican wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]TheTexican wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]TheTexican wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yeah, I know…but…and just hear me out: could they have used nonlethal ways to capture these individuals?
Sure. The benefit would have served US propaganda much better around he world.
Instead of having just an American Hero propaganda story for Americans it could have been a message to the rest of the world that the American military is actually “fighting for justice”.
Just saying…seems like most of these “adventures” are poorly thought out – at least in terms of international PR.[/quote]
Non-lethal ways to conduct hostage rescue operations from kidnappers in Somalia? You can lead the first non-lethal raid into a hostile area like that and let us all know how this ends up. Have you ever been shot at? Faced a hostile individual with a weapon? Wake up from your dream and realize the world doesn’t work that way. I take it your time in the military/law enforcement gave you the experience to understand these ideas are valid ones?[/quote]
So you’re telling me these super-top-secret-ninja-warrior-assassins are not actually that badass?
My time in the military taught me not to trust people that ask me to “jump on grenades” for their causes.[/quote]
One: When did I say anything wasn’t badass? Don’t create new debates.
Two: How does “jumping on a grenade” even apply to rescuing hostages, one of whom, would have died soon without medical care, from their captors??
America DID serve justice in this case. Humans had been abducted, against their wills, held at gunpoint, and without basic necessities. There was NO other way to free them than what had already taken place. The hostage takers were NOT going to free them. Maybe you should have written them a nice letter requesting a trade for some muffins or possibly even offer the hostage takers asylum in the US and free citizenship. I’m sure there are a few homes in your neighborhood who could take them in. Even you, oh champion of the world, would you be willing to take them in and educate them in the humane and fair treatment of others?[/quote]
Just because something happens does that make it necessary that it happened that way?
This is a legitimately philosophical question.
If we cannot discuss what ought to be versus what is then there is no point to PWI or any philosophical debate in general.
The point I am trying to make is whether it is in the interest of American foreign policy that it happened this specific way?
What if it did not even really happen?
What if this is just a propaganda story for the Obama administration to sell to the American public?
I don’t see why I should be marginalized for these perfectly legitimate questions.[/quote]
You created answers and quetions on my behalf… that’s just ridiculous.
I do believe this was in our best interest. We rescued hostages in a life threatening situation with precision. No unnecessary lives were lost. You may think, or at least debate, the captors should have been spared, but I see no way for that scenario to play out. They had been given a chance to surrender. Multiple, if memory serves correct.
Aswer my legitimate question, then. Do you believe we should have offered them citizenship in return for the captors? You value their lives don’t you? Do you want them to have a fair shake in life?
This event did happen. I know that for a fact. [/quote]
How does this rescue help you directly?
It doesn’t. It helps make the president look good while making the US military look like exactly what it is – people who kill other people really well.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]TheTexican wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]TheTexican wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]TheTexican wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yeah, I know…but…and just hear me out: could they have used nonlethal ways to capture these individuals?
Sure. The benefit would have served US propaganda much better around he world.
Instead of having just an American Hero propaganda story for Americans it could have been a message to the rest of the world that the American military is actually “fighting for justice”.
Just saying…seems like most of these “adventures” are poorly thought out – at least in terms of international PR.[/quote]
Non-lethal ways to conduct hostage rescue operations from kidnappers in Somalia? You can lead the first non-lethal raid into a hostile area like that and let us all know how this ends up. Have you ever been shot at? Faced a hostile individual with a weapon? Wake up from your dream and realize the world doesn’t work that way. I take it your time in the military/law enforcement gave you the experience to understand these ideas are valid ones?[/quote]
So you’re telling me these super-top-secret-ninja-warrior-assassins are not actually that badass?
My time in the military taught me not to trust people that ask me to “jump on grenades” for their causes.[/quote]
One: When did I say anything wasn’t badass? Don’t create new debates.
Two: How does “jumping on a grenade” even apply to rescuing hostages, one of whom, would have died soon without medical care, from their captors??
America DID serve justice in this case. Humans had been abducted, against their wills, held at gunpoint, and without basic necessities. There was NO other way to free them than what had already taken place. The hostage takers were NOT going to free them. Maybe you should have written them a nice letter requesting a trade for some muffins or possibly even offer the hostage takers asylum in the US and free citizenship. I’m sure there are a few homes in your neighborhood who could take them in. Even you, oh champion of the world, would you be willing to take them in and educate them in the humane and fair treatment of others?[/quote]
Just because something happens does that make it necessary that it happened that way?
This is a legitimately philosophical question.
If we cannot discuss what ought to be versus what is then there is no point to PWI or any philosophical debate in general.
The point I am trying to make is whether it is in the interest of American foreign policy that it happened this specific way?
What if it did not even really happen?
What if this is just a propaganda story for the Obama administration to sell to the American public?
I don’t see why I should be marginalized for these perfectly legitimate questions.[/quote]
You created answers and quetions on my behalf… that’s just ridiculous.
I do believe this was in our best interest. We rescued hostages in a life threatening situation with precision. No unnecessary lives were lost. You may think, or at least debate, the captors should have been spared, but I see no way for that scenario to play out. They had been given a chance to surrender. Multiple, if memory serves correct.
Aswer my legitimate question, then. Do you believe we should have offered them citizenship in return for the captors? You value their lives don’t you? Do you want them to have a fair shake in life?
This event did happen. I know that for a fact. [/quote]
How does this rescue help you directly?
It doesn’t. It helps make the president look good while making the US military look like exactly what it is – people who kill other people really well.[/quote]
There is a need for people who are able/willing to kill others. Just the way life works. Not everyone accepts sincere requests for surrender.
How does this event even effect you? Adversely? Beneficially?
What did you do in the military? You sound like a disgruntled POG.
[quote]TheTexican wrote:
There is a need for people who are able/willing to kill others. Just the way life works. Not everyone accepts sincere requests for surrender.
[/quote]
I am not disputing this position one bit. If I were directly attacked I would do everything in my power to stay alive; however, if I go looking for trouble and get attacked it becomes a different matter all together.
And no doubt there should be people like these willing to risk their lives to rescue others; I just disagree that it is government’s job to do it. I think it sets the stage for bad PR with foreign nations especially with the likelihood for “collateral damage”.
I want private firms competing with each other to do these types of rescue missions so that individual firms can be held financially and criminally accountable for their actions.
Imagine the likes of a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet donating the cash to hire a search and rescue team. I could get behind that.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
if I go looking for trouble and get attacked it becomes a different matter all together.[/quote]
This is exactly what the Somalis did.
You believe contracting out the missions is a viable option? How would we regulate private entities on foreign soil? Could we, as Americans, be held liable in the world’s eyes for misconduct of individuals we are not able to hold legally responsible for their actions abroad?
Your selective replies leave much to the imagination.
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
if I go looking for trouble and get attacked it becomes a different matter all together.[/quote]
This is exactly what the Somalis did.
[/quote]
Right, my point is often times military operations can cause “collateral damage” that have nothing to do with their actual mission. It happens a lot and nothing is ever done about it because war gets “special treatment”.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
if I go looking for trouble and get attacked it becomes a different matter all together.[/quote]
This is exactly what the Somalis did.
[/quote]
Right, my point is often times military operations can cause “collateral damage” that have nothing to do with their actual mission. It happens a lot and nothing is ever done about it because war gets “special treatment”.[/quote]
This is one of the reasons that I feel war is declared too casually at times. The decision makers should look a little harder before that step is taken. That being said, in this instance that did not occur and I was only referring to this particular case. I think the SEAL team did an excellent job.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
if I go looking for trouble and get attacked it becomes a different matter all together.[/quote]
This is exactly what the Somalis did.
[/quote]
Right, my point is often times military operations can cause “collateral damage” that have nothing to do with their actual mission. It happens a lot and nothing is ever done about it because war gets “special treatment”.[/quote]
Again, what were your duties in the military? Which branch? Where did you serve?
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
if I go looking for trouble and get attacked it becomes a different matter all together.[/quote]
This is exactly what the Somalis did.
[/quote]
Right, my point is often times military operations can cause “collateral damage” that have nothing to do with their actual mission. It happens a lot and nothing is ever done about it because war gets “special treatment”.[/quote]
This is one of the reasons that I feel war is declared too casually at times. The decision makers should look a little harder before that step is taken. That being said, in this instance that did not occur and I was only referring to this particular case. I think the SEAL team did an excellent job.
[/quote]
The actual op took only a few MINUTES with NO “collateral” damage. The Somalis did not submit to the request to surrender and knew this was coming based on their decision.
[quote]TheTexican wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
if I go looking for trouble and get attacked it becomes a different matter all together.[/quote]
This is exactly what the Somalis did.
[/quote]
Right, my point is often times military operations can cause “collateral damage” that have nothing to do with their actual mission. It happens a lot and nothing is ever done about it because war gets “special treatment”.[/quote]
This is one of the reasons that I feel war is declared too casually at times. The decision makers should look a little harder before that step is taken. That being said, in this instance that did not occur and I was only referring to this particular case. I think the SEAL team did an excellent job.
[/quote]
The actual op took only a few MINUTES with NO “collateral” damage. The Somalis did not submit to the request to surrender and knew this was coming based on their decision. [/quote]
In case there was a misunderstanding I wasn’t criticizing this op. As stated I feel the SEAL team did an awesome job. And I don’t question the decision to carry out this mission.
[quote]TheTexican wrote:
You believe contracting out the missions is a viable option? How would we regulate private entities on foreign soil? Could we, as Americans, be held liable in the world’s eyes for misconduct of individuals we are not able to hold legally responsible for their actions abroad?
[/quote]
A contract is all the regulation necessary. As it is there are no regulations anyway because everyone is considered fair game in wartime – “oops, collateral damage.”
On the other hand, if a contractor breaches a contract – i.e., causes property damage or death to innocents – that is a big deal and someone is going to pay – most likely an insurance agency who will be responsible to apprehend the contractor(s).
I believe in a private law society because I believe free and open competition for justice is the only way to keep power in check.
Power is the ultimate tool for evil and we should never trust those who claim to want to use it to “keep us safe”.
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]TheTexican wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
if I go looking for trouble and get attacked it becomes a different matter all together.[/quote]
This is exactly what the Somalis did.
[/quote]
Right, my point is often times military operations can cause “collateral damage” that have nothing to do with their actual mission. It happens a lot and nothing is ever done about it because war gets “special treatment”.[/quote]
This is one of the reasons that I feel war is declared too casually at times. The decision makers should look a little harder before that step is taken. That being said, in this instance that did not occur and I was only referring to this particular case. I think the SEAL team did an excellent job.
[/quote]
The actual op took only a few MINUTES with NO “collateral” damage. The Somalis did not submit to the request to surrender and knew this was coming based on their decision. [/quote]
In case there was a misunderstanding I wasn’t criticizing this op. As stated I feel the SEAL team did an awesome job. And I don’t question the decision to carry out this mission.
[/quote]
I was agreeing.
[quote]TheTexican wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]TheTexican wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
if I go looking for trouble and get attacked it becomes a different matter all together.[/quote]
This is exactly what the Somalis did.
[/quote]
Right, my point is often times military operations can cause “collateral damage” that have nothing to do with their actual mission. It happens a lot and nothing is ever done about it because war gets “special treatment”.[/quote]
This is one of the reasons that I feel war is declared too casually at times. The decision makers should look a little harder before that step is taken. That being said, in this instance that did not occur and I was only referring to this particular case. I think the SEAL team did an excellent job.
[/quote]
The actual op took only a few MINUTES with NO “collateral” damage. The Somalis did not submit to the request to surrender and knew this was coming based on their decision. [/quote]
In case there was a misunderstanding I wasn’t criticizing this op. As stated I feel the SEAL team did an awesome job. And I don’t question the decision to carry out this mission.
[/quote]
I was agreeing. [/quote]
Oh sorry, I thought you misunderstood my point.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]TheTexican wrote:
You believe contracting out the missions is a viable option? How would we regulate private entities on foreign soil? Could we, as Americans, be held liable in the world’s eyes for misconduct of individuals we are not able to hold legally responsible for their actions abroad?
[/quote]
A contract is all the regulation necessary. As it is there are no regulations anyway because everyone is considered fair game in wartime – “oops, collateral damage.”
On the other hand, if a contractor breaches a contract – i.e., causes property damage or death to innocents – that is a big deal and someone is going to pay – most likely an insurance agency who will be responsible to apprehend the contractor(s).
I believe in a private law society because I believe free and open competition for justice is the only way to keep power in check.
Power is the ultimate tool for evil and we should never trust those who claim to want to use it to “keep us safe”.[/quote]
Quit dodging my question, POG. What did you do?
Don’t you know what happened with these contractors during the “Wild West” period in Iraq? That was HIGHLY efficient, wasn’t it?
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
Oh sorry, I thought you misunderstood my point.
[/quote]
No worries. We both know who the irrational one is here.
[quote]TheTexican wrote:
Don’t you know what happened with these contractors during the “Wild West” period in Iraq? That was HIGHLY efficient, wasn’t it? [/quote]
What wild, wild west are you talking about?