Posts Tagged ‘bin Laden’

US Withholds $33 Million because of Doctor’s Treatment

Posted by Troy on 28th May 2012 in Current Events, Political

Pakistan has been utterly embarrassed by the fact that Osama bin Laden was hiding next door to an elite military college in their own backyard.  They have also been embarrassed by the fact that America managed to fly in helicopters next to this military college and assassinate Osama bin Laden, and we did all of this without asking them.  Of course, we didn’t ask them because Pakistan hates us and are not really our allies.  We give them money, and they use that money to confound our efforts in the area.  To repay us for embarrassing them on the world’s stage, they have sentenced Shakil Afridi, the man that led us to Osama bin Laden, to 33 years in prison.  We have responded by saying that we are going to withhold $33 million in aid from Pakistan.

First of all, this is so weak.  Why is everything this guy does so damn weak!  We’re cutting $33 million out of a $250 million dollar package.  Whoop de doo.  How about this: “Deliver Shakil Afridi to the American embassy, or you will never see another dime of American aid.”  Or how about his, “Deliver him immediately, or we are dumping you as an ally and allying ourselves to your greatest enemy, India.”  Hell, that would make more sense on a lot of different levels.  Indians think very highly of America.  India is an up and coming economic power.  India has a huge population and is a counter balance to China.  What does Pakistan have going for it?  Why the hell are we friends with this country that has hidden our worse enemy and aided the Taliban in killing Americans?  What is wrong with us?  If we want to play a game with it, we can say “You will lose a million dollars in aid for every hour it takes you to deliver Shakil Afridi to our embassy.  If your balance reaches zero, our alliance is at an end, and we will ally ourselves with India.”  That would add a bit of Hollywood drama to the whole thing and make things more entertaining for the folks at home.

His man helped us.  If we do not do something to save him from persecution, we should never expect to receive help from anyone else in the future.  No one is going to put their neck on the line if they feel as though they cannot trust us to cover their back.

Long Live the Constitution!

Obama, Romney, and Osama bin Laden walk into a bar and order a Bush

Posted by Troy on 1st May 2012 in Current Events, Political

Obama has recently attacked Romney with his own words concerning Osama bin Laden.  Romney was quoted as saying that it was not worth “moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars to catch one person…it’s more than Osama bin Laden.”  Obama has twisted these words to somehow mean that, if Romney were in Obama’s situation, he would not have ordered the raid to kill Osama bin Laden.  This is, of course, a faulty argument.  It means, if Romney had been in Bush’s position, he would not have gone to war in Afghanistan and (by extension) Iraq.  As such, the President after him would not have had the opportunity to order the raid on Osama bin Laden.  Accordingly, Obama himself would have also not gone to war if he had been in Bush’s place.  As much as I hate President Bush, he’s the one that deserves the credit for the kill.  It is doubtful we would have been in the position to locate and kill Osama bin Laden without Bush’s policies.

Now, let’s examine Romney’s statement.  Was it worth it?  Yep, we killed him.  Justice served.  Of course, justice could have been a bad kidney infection away.  Death isn’t justice; it’s what we face on the other side that’s justice.  So, was it worth spending billions of dollars and thousands of human lives and political capital to kill him?  Was he the only terrorist out there?  Is his death going to stop all other terrorist from plotting and planning?  I hate to say it, but no, it wasn’t worth it.  We have spent a trillion dollars to kill one man, and we are probably just as safe today as we were ten years ago.  One could argue that we are safer in the short term, but our history in meddling in the affairs of other countries has shown that the end results are almost always bad for us.  Afghanistan, Panama, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, North Korea, China, and so forth.  The second part of his statement justifies the first.  It is more than just Osama bin Laden.  If he were the only terrorist on the planet, and we just killed terrorism itself, then yeah, it would be worth it.  Saying you were against the planting of a tree doesn’t mean that you won’t eat the fruit once it grows.  We already spent the billions of dollars.  Might as well kill him while we’re at it.

It’s so funny that the Democrats are trying to spike the ball on this issue, since Democrats are against war in general.  I shall now outline how hypocritical Obama is being.  First of all, he was against the wars to start with.  Fine and dandy, but without the wars (at least Afghanistan anyway), Osama walks.  Obama took office promising to close Gitmo.  He didn’t.  He said he would stop “enhanced interrogation.”  He didn’t.  Because of the continuation of these Bush policies, information was obtained allowing for the killing of Osama bin Laden.  When he was a Senator, he said that justice could only be served if we captured Osama bin Laden alive and brought him to court and tried him for his crimes.  And yet, when the opportunity presented itself to do just that, he had him executed instead.  During the Iraq war, he called Seal Team Six “Chaney’s assassins.”  Now they are heroes (Well, after he’s had time to take credit for finding Osama and ordering the killing…then the Seals get a shout out.  Hey, after all, Obama did all the hard work.  All they did was jump out of a helicopter and shoot a guy.  Any idiot can do that.).  Last year, he refused to let us see pictures of Osama’s body because it might incite violence and acts of terrorism.  Of course, a year later it’s honky dory to flaunt it all over the news.  So, which is it?  Of course, I guess last year it wasn’t an election year.  I guess his re-election is worth the risk.

Say what you will, there is no flip-flop on Romney’s position in this matter, and I am not his biggest fan.  Obama, meanwhile, has flip-flopped like a fish.  He doesn’t deserve any more credit than a fire chief telling his crew to put out a fire or a bus driver slamming on breaks to avoid hitting a child that ran into the road.  It’s the call that should be made by whoever is in that position.

Long Live the Constitution!

Ron Paul interpreter

Posted by Troy on 17th January 2012 in Current Events, Political

I have always said that Ron Paul has a great platform, but he delivers his message poorly.  As such, I am going to take it upon myself to interpret Ron Paul’s comments for mass consumption:

Ron Paul:  ”I would not have authorized the action in Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden.” [Paraphrased]

Problem:  Americans want revenge.  Nearly all Americans would have ordered the action to exact our vengeance.

Ron Paul’s Intention:  He does not believe that the President has the authority to take military action in a foreign country without Congressional authority.  Also, he believes that when we ignore the national sovereignty of other countries, we undermine our own through the UN and other entities that try to supersede our national sovereignty and make enemies of those countries and their citizens.

My Interpretation (what he should have said):  ”No, I would not have ordered the raid to go into Pakistan and kill Osama bin Laden.  First, I would have evaluated the probability of success using diplomacy to have Pakistan capture and extradite him.  If I felt this was doomed to fail, then I would consider military action, but sending troops into a foreign country in order to kill someone is an act of war, and declaring war is the responsibility of Congress.  However, I would have called a closed door session of Congress to authorize such an endeavor.  This would be a grave matter.  Ignoring a country’s sovereignty makes an enemy of their government and their people and creates the greatest long term threat to our national security.”

Long Live the Constitution!

Michael Moore and Elisabeth Hasselbeck on Osama bin Laden

Posted by Troy on 15th September 2011 in Current Events, Political

Michael Moore feels that it is disgraceful that we “executed” Osama without a fair trial.  Hasselbeck disagree, but is unable to defend her position.  I will do that for her now.

Osama bin Laden is not a US Citizen, nor was he on our soil with our permission.  Ergo, he does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution.  We could also argue that he committed acts of war on the United States, but then we’d have to argue about what constitutes an act of war.

In this case, holding Osama for a trial would have been costly in legal costs, publicity, property damage, death threats, random acts of terrorism, and the like.  Also, where in America could he have gotten a “fair trial?”  Where in America could we have formed a jury of his “peers” without preconceived notions as to his innocence or guilt?  I don’t think there’s a change of venue available that would have accomplished this.

Of course, Moore doesn’t care about logic or Constitutionality.  He’s a member of the “hate America first” crowd.  If he thought that Osama’s tactics could bring down the Capitalist system in America, he would do all he could to create similar minded people.  Of course, he thinks that his movies will do that, and that is why we are treated to his intentionally misleading “documentaries.”