Osama

welsh

welsh

Junkmaster
I just saw the film Osama last night- Pretty good, although it had little to do with Osama Bin Laden.

But that got me thinking about Osama Bin Laden, and I have the need to get this off my chest.

Osama Bin Laden is a Prick.

If they catch this guy I hope they burn him and then let him heal, and burn him again.
 
The film was pretty good. I think it's one of the first Afghani films to come out.

Basically there is a family- grandmother, mother and daughter that are starving to death under the Taliban. The mother decides to cut the daughter's hair and put her to work so they don't starve. The rest of the story follows what happens after that.

An interesting look at the Taliban based on real stories and shot in Afghanistan. The place is a wasteland.

But those Taliban fuckers... The world is a better place without them and anyone who supports a world based on the Taliban model is fucked in the head.
 
Frankly, I doubt that Kerry can do any worse than Bush. So I'd just vote Kerry to get Bush out.
But I'm living in the wrong country for that. *shrugs*

On Osama:
Contrary to what probably many people believe, Osama is not part of the taliban, nor did he even support the taliban. He lived in Afghanistan, but he got into some conflicts with the taliban. Frankly, I don't think he really cared for them.

That said, Osama is an asshole. Obviously. But he's also a smart man who knows what he's doing: he's attacking America's innocents in the same way that, according to him, Israel and America have been attacking the muslim innocents. He justifies breaking the laws of the Koran by vengeance; by saying that because he's perceived evil, he will strike back with the same evil.

That said, I'd like to see what exactly will happen when they catch him. Methinks that a nice medieval-style parade through New York would be interesting.
 
First thing I'd do is to take "Before" and "After" pictures of him, that is before and after shaving his precious beard after all there might be fleas in it, all for medical reasons of course. Beyond that, I'd put him to a fair trial (not that I believe "fair" would be possible in this case), the whole "going Medieval on his ass" would do nothing but show that America has started to sink to the same low as his Taliban allies.
 
Well, you have to assume that he is still alive, something which I doubt. He isn't exactly a hard man to track, being both so tall and needing so much medical equipment. The machinery he needs to be kept alive should be easy to track to any country where he could hide out (all being rather lacking in the medical equipment industry). There has been a distinct lack of conclusive evidence about his survival. The tapes have all been rather vague, if not imposters. The Taliban has much more to gain by pretending he is still alive, and not dead in some cave.

I'm most likely going to vote Bush, who I see as the lesser of two evils. At least Bush is honest, which counts for something. Not to mention the situation in Iraq. If the United States pulls out completely, the situation will be worse than when we started, if we take the proper time needed to set up a government, at least that will be something. Besides, it's only four more years.

Why not vote for a third party ExtremeRyno? I'd vote for the Green party, just so they get the 5% of the vote needed to receive federal matching funds. It doesn't mean I want them in office, but I think the two-party American system has gotten stale, they need serious compitition to shake things up.
 
ExtremeRyno said:
Someone else said it best: "Voting for a 3rd party [Nader] is just taking away from votes that would go for Kerry and against Bush."
Click to expand...

Yeh, they said that about the last elections too. I don't get it, really. Isn't the entire point of elections voting for the guy who thinks represents you best; or might do the best things for your country as a whole?

If Colin Powell ever ran, I'd definately have to vote for him.
Click to expand...

People seem to forget that he was the one who bombed the retreating Iraqi army in the first Gulf War; therefore making him a war-criminal.
 
ExtremeRyno said:
I don't care much for Iraq, so I don't mind that he bombed them while they ran away. That's like saying "He slapped a Frenchmen." Doesn't bother me a bit.
Click to expand...


Yes, but it proves that he too has no respect for international law; which makes him just as dangerous as George W. Bush.
 
Jebus said:
Yes, but it proves that he too has no respect for international law; which makes him just as dangerous as George W. Bush.
Click to expand...
Dubya has no understanding of it either.
That makes him more dangerous.
 
Powell? Now there is a man I respect, and would like to see run for President. It's a shame that it will never happen.

Powell will not be involved in the Government, at least so publicly, for very much longer. His wife hates media attention, she has been trying to get Powell to quit public office for years now. It's a shame, but that is how things sometimes work in Washington (or, "inside the beltway," but that's a local reference).

What do you mean by international law? Iraq's military conquest of Kuwait was a violation of international law, and on top of that they sabotaged over half of Kuwait's oil wells on their way out. Not to bring up the missiles Iraq was poised to use at the time. I really don't see bombing a retreating Iraqi army as that bad of a choice.
 
Kotario said:
What do you mean by international law? Iraq's military conquest of Kuwait was a violation of international law, and on top of that they sabotaged over half of Kuwait's oil wells on their way out. Not to bring up the missiles Iraq was poised to use at the time. I really don't see bombing a retreating Iraqi army as that bad of a choice.
Click to expand...

As the old saying goes: two wrongs don't make a right. By bombing the retreating army they basically proved they were no better than the Iraqi's...
 
Ha! We are talking about international politics here. If China demands something from America, America demands something right back from China. There is no such thing as 'playing nice,' it's a very nasty game. When politics fail, and the situation dissolves into war, the game takes a turn for worse, the nasty game gets even nastier.

You honestly expect people to be civil in warfare? The United States was better than the Iraqi, we liberated the independent country of Kuwait from a dictator. Kuwait isn't a U.S. territory, but a country with it's own government, something which would not be the case if it was still in the hands of Iraq. There is no such thing as a code of conduct in warfare anyway, not when you get down to the actual combat.

Would you shout out to your enemy in an ambush, so they had a fair chance to defend themselves?
 
Kotario said:
There is no such thing as a code of conduct in warfare anyway, not when you get down to the actual combat.
Click to expand...

There is the Geneva Convention.
And of course I agree that International Politics is a dirty game, and war only an exponent of that dirtyness. But that shouldn't mean the conduct of war shouldn't be regulated to some extent... Just look at what happened in Yugoslavia, for example, or Congo, or...
There are four basic rules: a) You don't kill innocent civilians b) You have to give the enemy a chance to surrender c) You have to treat POW's like human beings and d) You can't use weapons that are considered 'inhumane'.

So far, the US hasn't succeeded in living up to a single one of them.



And the combat in Iraq was already over, anyway. They bombed a retreating army... Really, how the hell could you justify that??
 
You mean Kuwait, don't you, the "Highway of Hell?" Part of it depends on what you believe, were the Iraqi army withdrawing out of Kuwait, or simply retreating to a point where they could fight back? Basically, was the Iraqi army a continuing threat? Can't answer that myself, I lean towards they were still a threat, but that is simple opinion.

There are many things to take into account for a Commander, we are not in their position. We have the comfort of looking in retrospect. What information do you trust, since much of it is worthless or wrong? Which areas are threats? When is the fighting truly over? You have to make choices, with far too little time to think and far too little information.

Simply put, it can not be justified morally, but it doesn't mean the person, in this case Powell, did the wrong thing.
 
Jebus said:
People seem to forget that he was the one who bombed the retreating Iraqi army in the first Gulf War; therefore making him a war-criminal.
Click to expand...

It's not a war crime to attack a retreating army.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top