Osama Bin Laden is Dead

[Velensk]

Cuba would be wiped off the map in a matter of days and the world would applaud.

I rather doubt it. Both parts but especially the second part.

[Gambit]

Really? I can see us going nuclear (perhaps even literally) over such a thing.

[Velensk]

If so, then you'd be overreacting more than a tad. Then again, Americans seem pretty good at overreactions.

I will still doubt that the world would applaud.

[Sgt. Groovy]

I rather doubt it.

Let's see, US invaded Panama, in total violation of international law, allegedly to apprehend one man, Manuel Noriega. The body count of civilian casualties of this "police action" measured in thousands. Noriega was a brutal dictator and a drug lord, but he is also an ex-CIA man whose drug dealing had been ignored by US for decades.

US invaded Afghanistan, allegedly to apprehend one man, who has now 10 years later been caught in another country, where he probably was all along. The occupation still prevails, after countless of civilian deaths. An islamist regime was ousted as a by-product, but they were helped into power by US in the first place, and the replacement isn't all that much better, or really even all that different.

US invaded Iraq, because allegedly it threatened US with WMDs (it didn't) and was somehow involved in 9/11 (it wasn't). A brutal dictator was ousted as a by-product, but he used to be an important US ally.


Now, if some other country would send its military into US territory, to conduct an unauthorised military action and killing people on the way, what would you think would happen to the US president if he didn't order a full scale invasion into that country?

[Velensk]

I have no idea. However, I'm sure he'd survive it, though maybe not politically.

I really don't think he could survive nuking Cuba.

[Pentarctagon]

nuking it? probably not, if only because of how extreme that would be. though I wouldn't be surprised if he would launch a crapload of conventional missiles at 'strategic sites' all over Cuba.

[Frogger5]

In reply to Velenk's comment:

Spoiler:

I dont have time to read all that, but I get the gist of what your saying. But the simple fact is, we got on fine without the death penalty. We simply don't need it and have not had those problems that your mentioned. Being in prison in Australia isnt quite as bad as people seem to think. You get an amount of freedom that allows you to make friends, play sport, see your family and friends every now and then, and I've never heard a about people going mad or slowly deteriorating in prison.

Its not a fear of death at all. Its giving people another chance, and not taking away something that no one has the right to take away. Its respecting the fact that even criminals have families who love them. We're a democracy. So if we'd wanted to keep the DP, we would have. But we didn't, and it works. Sure there are downsides, but it means we don't have to wash our hands every-time someone gets executed, and IMHO It wouldn't be a stretch to say there are more downsides to having the DP.

[Velensk]

And again

Spoiler:

If you're going to respond to my post please at least read all of it. This is especially important considering your comment 'families who love them'.

I'm sure my uncle has friends of a sort. I'm sure he gets to enjoy sports occasionally, I know that he has contact with his family. I have no idea if it is a comfort to him right now but I do know that it is no real comfort to myself and that it's even harder on my grandparents. On the other side of the coin the parents of the aunt who committed suicide (which is an even better way to get yourself killed than committing a crime punishable by death as it does not result in other people dyeing as often) have long since moved on to the practical aspects of raising her daughter (who is very well adjusted). The follies of the dead are more distant than the follies of the living.

I don't know why you'd need to wash your hands of the executed unless they were innocent of the crime they were executed for. Fear of the morality of inflicting death is a portion of the fear of death. An important thing to remember, is that there are people who should be killed even if they don't deserve death. Just be sure you know exactly why you are doing it.

As I mentioned, my uncle was consistent with blowing second chances. Maybe next time it won't get anyone killed (seems probable to me) but what good does will it do him? A second chance at a life where your ability to benefit anyone is limited to about what you can do with words is something but most of the people who end up sentenced to death are not the kind that are likely to either be willing or able to do anything with it.

[johndh]

Why is it so wrong to be happy that Osama bin Laden is dead?

Are you equally happy about the way it was conducted?

No idea. I would have to look into it. If it was done in a way that harmed our (the US's) relationship with the Pakistanis or that harmed noncombatants, then that is regrettable, but the fact that Osama bin Laden will never again harm anyone, is at least some small victory and something to be happy about.

[Gambit]

Aaaaand, cue the ugly side of humanity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I4CsR591FM (Warning: mild language)

too long; didn't watch version: A teacher in Texas asked a Muslim student if she was sad that her "uncle" died.

[Dunno]

I wonder if that teacher could show Pakistan on a map.

[Hulavuta]

So was that teacher stupid or just a prick? But they left out some information...like, why the teacher thought she was related to Bin Laden? Was the girl's last name coincidentally the same? Did the teacher actually think that she was related to him, or was it just a stereotype "all asians are related" kind of thing? Is there another article or link to the whole news story? I feel they left some things out...

Also, lol, 9th grade Algebra.

[Sgt. Groovy]

I would have to look into it. If it was done in a way that harmed our (the US's) relationship with the Pakistanis or that harmed noncombatants, then that is regrettable, but the fact that Osama bin Laden will never again harm anyone, is at least some small victory and something to be happy about.

I'm afraid there's more at stake than that. Pakistan is politically highly unstable and there are already large factions that do not like the way their government bends over for US and don't think they can be trusted with maintaining Pakistan's sovereignty (and for a good reason). This incidence will just throw petrol into that fire.

Also, the operation was a violation of international law. It has now been brought to light that actually, only one person at the compound was armed, and he was the first to die, so the rest of the casualties were not "killed in a firefight" but quite frankly executed. None of them had been sentenced to death in a court of law, not even in absentia, and the operation was not authorised be the Pakistani government. Now, why should this matter? After all, they were bad guys. For one thing, there is very little real enforcement system for international law, it is mostly upheld my a code of honour. If a powerful and influential nation like US is pissing all over the law, why should anyone else obey it?

Or turning it around, if US is breaking the international law whenever it pleases, it should not complain when somebody else does it, against US interests. If how US handled bin Laden was OK, to be logically and morally consistent, it should also be OK for Panama to send a kill team to take out George Bush, who ordered the illegal invasion into Panama that led to civilian death comparable to 9/11 (That the objective of the invasion was not to kill civilians is irrelevant. If you set a house on fire knowing there are people inside, and they die, you are as good as a murderer even if your objective was to commit an insurance fraud).

[Pentarctagon]

tbh, what it really comes down to is if there is anyone who would actually try and do something about what the United States is doing/has done. with the way things are set up now, as well as with the US being one of the most powerful countries in the world at the moment, the options seem very limited.

[doofus-01]

Or turning it around, if US is breaking the international law whenever it pleases, it should not complain when somebody else does it, against US interests.

Good thing the US doesn't break international law "whenever it wishes".

If how US handled bin Laden was OK, to be logically and morally consistent, it should also be OK for Panama to send a kill team to take out George Bush, who ordered the illegal invasion into Panama that led to civilian death comparable to 9/11 (That the objective of the invasion was not to kill civilians is irrelevant. If you set a house on fire knowing there are people inside, and they die, you are as good as a murderer even if your objective was to commit an insurance fraud).

If instead of bin Laden, it were someone else the US doesn't like, say Hugo Chavez or Gaddafi, you might have a point. Last I checked, bin Laden was not a leader of Pakistan.

Or maybe if Cuba tried to assassinate Luis Posada Carriles in Florida, that would be somewhat parallel.

Did the US violate Pakistan's territory? Only because Pakistan was harboring bin Laden. If he were in detention, different story. But he wasn't.