Implications of Bin Laden's death?

invinciblePRSTV · 02-05-2011 04:30PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

Not to drag this thread further off topic, but in a lot of these places, the US military presence was/is welcomed because it 1) provides a security umbrella, and 2) provided an economic boost to both the government and surrounding areas.

Yes you make a good point. Just like in Iraq, Pakistan & Afghanistan, you can add nations as diverse as Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and plenty of other freedom loving nations both now and throughout recent history which have been the recipient of generous economic returns from the USA.

southsiderosie wrote: »

The US also has bases in countries where it has never fought a war, such as Spain and Turkey.

Ah yes, that great freedom lover General Franco invited the USA to station themselves in Spain in the post WWII era. Two pea's in a pod eh?

southsiderosie wrote: »

But don't let all of this get in the way of a good rant now.

Of course, it's a rant when someone challenges the perception that the US is a benevolent force for good in this world, only interested in upholding high ideals such as freedom and democracy and never acting in it's own narrow self interest.

southsiderosie · 02-05-2011 04:47PM

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Yes you make a good point. Just like in Iraq, Pakistan & Afghanistan, you can add nations as diverse as Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and plenty of other freedom loving nations both now and throughout recent history which have been the recipient of generous economic returns from the USA.

Ah yes, that great freedom lover General Franco invited the USA to station themselves in Spain in the post WWII era. Two pea's in a pod eh?

Of course, it's a rant when someone challenges the perception that the US is a benevolent force for good in this world, only interested in upholding high ideals such as freedom and democracy and never acting in it's own narrow self interest.

Your post suggested that the US sets up its bases from behind the barrel of a gun. I suggest that not all bases were unwanted, and that states have their own strategic reasons for working with the US military. Not once did I say that the US was not acting in its own self-interest; what I am suggesting is that other states do so as well. But it's easier to pretend like these countries are all passive actors, rather than exploiting US strategic interests for their own ends, whether economic or security-related.

Mr.Micro · 02-05-2011 04:49PM

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Of course, it's a rant when someone challenges the perception that the US is a benevolent force for good in this world, only interested in upholding high ideals such as freedom and democracy and never acting in it's own narrow self interest.

The US looks out for the US and its interests are not altruistic but purely what the US can will get. It does not apply the accepted or expected codes of conduct or justice abroad as it does at home.

For all we know bin Laden could have died years ago but it suits the US to state he was killed now. A PR stunt, absolutely. What are the implications for Pakistan, is it complicit or just a bystander in its own country? How far can the US stretch itself in policing the world alienating many in its wake?

invinciblePRSTV · 02-05-2011 05:06PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

Your post suggested that the US sets up its bases from behind the barrel of a gun. I suggest that not all bases were unwanted, and that states have their own strategic reasons for working with the US military. Not once did I say that the US was not acting in its own self-interest; what I am suggesting is that other states do so as well. But it's easier to pretend like these countries are all passive actors, rather than exploiting US strategic interests for their own ends, whether economic or security-related.

You're splitting hairs here. My post suggested that the United States will use conflict of any sorts as a pretext for establishing a military presence in a particular region in order to advance it's geo-political aims. So, whilst it's not exclusively done through the barrel of a gun, it can be used as a particularly effective tactic, witness the 2003 Iraq invasion.

The "self - interest" of countries who allow the US to locate themselves in their territory is in reality, weak or puppet governments in place dependant on the USA for political legitimacy/economic aid or both. In other words more often then not the US Government makes them an offer they can't refuse.

You're spinning a narrative that the US only intervenes in countries reluctantly once they are invited in by the local adminstration, and will then go about protecting its self interest once there. I'm suggesting History shows that the US will use any opportunity to involve themselves in a country or region where there is benefit for them in political or economic terms. The long, long list of countries and regions which have had US military incursions on their soil bears this out.

liah · 02-05-2011 05:11PM

I'm wondering if he was executed rather than captured to ensure the U.S. has a reason to stay in the Middle East - there will be backlash from fundamentalists against the U.S. and I'm sure they'll use it as an additional excuse/justification to continue to occupy those countries.

I guess all we can do is see how it unfolds.

Manic Moran · 02-05-2011 05:13PM

So, a decade on, and after countless thousands dead and billions if not trillions spent, and Afghanistan is in no better place then it was in 2001?

Seems to me that someone needs to pay a visit to Afghanistan.

There was a comment on one of these threads that the US bombed the place back into the stone age. Unfortunately, that isn't really accurate. The place was already in the stone age when the US got going. I believe the place is still the world's third-poorest country. It's sortof an academic statistic until you go over and you actually see what that means in practise. Then you look at the work that has been done there over the last ten years by most any measure, and you'll be hard pressed to say that there has been no notable improvement.

NTM

Jonny7 · 02-05-2011 05:27PM

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Oh god, at the risk of turning this thread into a history lesson....

When you've time to yourself, have a look at the map and see where the US has been militarily active over the past 120 or so years. Now take a look at where the US has military bases. If you're doing it correctly you'll see a strong correlation between the two, such as Europe, Japan, the Caribbean, various points round the Pacific and so forth.

Why aren't they still in Vietnam? because they got beat, to paraphrase your goodself "duuuhhhhh".

120 years, did I read that right? no I don't need a history lesson thanks, I am pretty well up on US imperialism, but 120 years.. wow

So, a decade on, and after countless thousands dead and billions if not trillions spent, and Afghanistan is in no better place then it was in 2001? the only difference is, of course, the US has a military presence there and a puppet government in place to give its occupation the sheen of respectability and legality.

They don't want to be there, what part of this do you not understand? stop painting this ridiculous picture of the smug gloating imperialist nation .. this isn't the scramble for Africa (thats within 120 years isn't it), they just want out, its a big mess, they don't want to be there.

Not to fight them, but to kill them and get away with it. Wikileaks showed us time and time and again that the US military killed scores of Afghan civilians and tried to pretend it didn't happen or cover up there actions by describing them as 'enemy combatants', when the reality was they were just innocents like you or I.

Time and time again, history has shown us that innocent people die in combat and that truth is the first casualty. Actually as military incidents go, the US/UK are surprisingly frank when they slaughter civilians by mistake. I am really getting tired of the posters here who only join threads to point out how horrified they are by American/British/Israeli soldiers killing innocents.. yet they never ever.. and I mean ever.. seem to appear to condemn or even write on threads concerning conflicts and situations not involving US/UK/Israel - the second casualty of war seems to be bias.

Hmm I don't know why the Yanks want to be in Afghanistan. After all it's only sheer coincidence that the US has invaded two countries in the past decade which share a land border with Iran.

I think this is the first time I've genuinely seen someone writing about US interests abroad but not know why they are actually in Afghanistan.. then mention something about a border with Iran

It definitely isn't a case of an aggressive economic empire securing geo-political strategic objectives, oh no, definitely not.:pac:

I don't think you've twigged that I am firmly against US imperialism and activity within Afghanistan, but due to the absolutely complexity of the situation, I can't just join in and harp on "oh why are they there, America is so evil herp derp"

Back on thread I am kinda surprised about the 99.9% DNA link to Bin Laden - bit weak if you ask me - if they don't have photo/video of the corpse.. people really aren't gonna believe it, even newsreaders are questioning as to why there are none

invinciblePRSTV · 02-05-2011 05:27PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Seems to me that someone needs to pay a visit to Afghanistan.

Shame i don't have the US taxpayer funding my trips to there.

Manic Moran wrote: »

There was a comment on one of these threads that the US bombed the place back into the stone age. Unfortunately, that isn't really accurate. The place was already in the stone age when the US got going. I believe the place is still the world's third-poorest country. It's sortof an academic statistic until you go over and you actually see what that means in practise. Then you look at the work that has been done there over the last ten years by most any measure, and you'll be hard pressed to say that there has been no notable improvement.

NTM

Afghanistan has had secular and communist Governments since the second world war, it was only after your crowd started funding the Islamic extremists in the 1980s did the Taliban start emerging as a potent political entity which came to dominate the country.

KeithAFC · 02-05-2011 05:32PM

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Shame i don't have the US taxpayer funding my trips to there.

Afghanistan has had secular and communist Governments since the second world war, it was only after your crowd started funding the Islamic extremists in the 1980s did the Taliban start emerging as a potent political entity which came to dominate the country.

It wasn't until the nutters abused their religion and put a twist on it, then the problems started.

Memnoch · 02-05-2011 05:33PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

Your post suggested that the US sets up its bases from behind the barrel of a gun. I suggest that not all bases were unwanted, and that states have their own strategic reasons for working with the US military. Not once did I say that the US was not acting in its own self-interest; what I am suggesting is that other states do so as well. But it's easier to pretend like these countries are all passive actors, rather than exploiting US strategic interests for their own ends, whether economic or security-related.

There is a difference between the people and the states.

I'm sure corrupt and dictatorial regimes love having the US around to help them, symbolically or otherwise, continue to exploit their own people.

In that context, rants are very much valid as is the issue of western/US moral hypocrisy.

Mr.Micro · 02-05-2011 05:35PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Back on thread I am kinda surprised about the 99.9% DNA link to Bin Laden - bit weak if you ask me - if they don't have photo/video of the corpse.. people really aren't gonna believe it, even newsreaders are questioning as to why there are none

Well they had better fish him out of the sea then to take a few photos, that they forgot to take in their haste to dispose of him. The story is beginning to sound more fishy by the hour. Maybe they can knock up something on photoshop just like Obama's birth cert.

invinciblePRSTV · 02-05-2011 05:40PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

120 years, did I read that right? no I don't need a history lesson thanks, I am pretty well up on US imperialism,

You could've fooled me.

Jonny7 wrote: »

but 120 years.. wow

Search your no doubt exhaustive knowledge of US history and reference the US' war against Spain and activities in central American during, before and after the turn of the 20th Century.

Jonny7 wrote: »

They don't want to be there, what part of this do you not understand? stop painting this ridiculous picture of the smug gloating imperialist nation .. this isn't the scramble for Africa (thats within 120 years isn't it), they just want out, its a big mess, they don't want to be there.

If they don't want to be there then they should leave. But they do want to be there, at least have a military base in place as it suits their objectives for the region, I put money on it they'll still be in Afghanistan, 10,20,30 years from now. No doubt the local warlord run government will be happy to have them there for 'economic reasons' as Rosie would have you believe:pac:.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Time and time again, history has shown us that innocent people die in combat and that truth is the first casualty. Actually as military incidents go, the US/UK are surprisingly frank when they slaughter civilians by mistake. I am really getting tired of the posters here who only join threads to point out how horrified they are by American/British/Israeli soldiers killing innocents.. yet they never ever.. and I mean ever.. seem to appear to condemn or even write on threads concerning conflicts and situations not involving US/UK/Israel - the second casualty of war seems to be bias.

That's great thanks for that.

Jonny7 wrote: »

I think this is the first time I've genuinely seen someone writing about US interests abroad but not know why they are actually in Afghanistan.. then mention something about a border with Iran

What you on about? i'm making the argument that long after Bin Laden, AQ and the Taliban no longer pose a threat to the USA, that the USA will still be in Afghanistan.

Jonny7 wrote: »

I don't think you've twigged that I am firmly against US imperialism and activity within Afghanistan

You could've fooled me.

Jonny7 wrote: »

but due to the absolutely complexity of the situation, I can't just join in and harp on "oh why are they there, America is so evil herp derp"

What complexities? spell it out for me. No one is spinning the "America is evil" line, merely pointing out that a country with it's track record and history, it is most likely that it will be in Afghanistan for the long term, even with the Taliban and Bin Laden long gone.

southsiderosie · 02-05-2011 05:55PM

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

You're splitting hairs here. My post suggested that the United States will use conflict of any sorts as a pretext for establishing a military presence in a particular region in order to advance it's geo-political aims. So, whilst it's not exclusively done through the barrel of a gun, it can be used as a particularly effective tactic, witness the 2003 Iraq invasion.

The "self - interest" of countries who allow the US to locate themselves in their territory is in reality, weak or puppet governments in place dependant on the USA for political legitimacy/economic aid or both. In other words more often then not the US Government makes them an offer they can't refuse.

You're spinning a narrative that the US only intervenes in countries reluctantly once they are invited in by the local adminstration, and will then go about protecting its self interest once there. I'm suggesting History shows that the US will use any opportunity to involve themselves in a country or region where there is benefit for them in political or economic terms. The long, long list of countries and regions which have had US military incursions on their soil bears this out.

So Britain is a weak and/or puppet government?

Do you really think that in the post-war era Germany's neighbors wanted them to have their own large army again, even with the neighboring Soviet threat? (They couldn't have even if they had wanted to.)

Do you think Pacific rim countries don't benefit from the US Navy's presence? Or that countries like Korea would prefer to see the Japanese taking on this role, given the history of the region?

I do not agree with a lot of American foreign policy. But to pretend like there are not massive spillover benefits to a lot of countries from having an American military presence is ridiculous. It is also silly to think that the US would sink blood and treasure into regions where it did not have strategic aims, whether shipping lanes, access to oil, or prevention of ruinous regional conflicts - no country would. Finally, for many countries, having a US military presence is the lesser of two evils given who their neighbors are. Just shrieking "bad, bad, the USA is bad" is far too simplistic.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 02-05-2011 05:59PM

Is there any confirmation that they dumped his body at sea? If they did I'm just not believing this story at all.

He hasn't made a video in years I'm convinced he died years ago.

Bit of a stretch this is to help Obama in the running for his presidency but it could well be the pretext for withdrawing from Afghanistan

Amerika · 02-05-2011 06:08PM

Won’t be long until the merits of harsh interrogation tactics, which helped lead to grand final outcome of OBL, are once again debated.
http://www.startribune.com/nation/121089124.html

LostinKildare · 02-05-2011 06:11PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Well they had better fish him out of the sea then to take a few photos, that they forgot to take in their haste to dispose of him. The story is beginning to sound more fishy by the hour. Maybe they can knock up something on photoshop just like Obama's birth cert.

According to news reports they do have photographs and are debating whether to release them. (I'd have been very surprised if they didn't photograph the body)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-officials-debate-releasing-photographs-of-bin-ladens-corpse-1.html

murpho999 · 02-05-2011 06:13PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Is there any confirmation that they dumped his body at sea? If they did I'm just not believing this story at all.

He hasn't made a video in years I'm convinced he died years ago.

Bit of a stretch this is to help Obama in the running for his presidency but it could well be the pretext for withdrawing from Afghanistan

Please don't go spreading a conspiracy theory.

They have said they buried him at sea and I'm sure they'll release photos of his body soon.

I suppose you think Elvis is still alive too.

Manic Moran · 02-05-2011 06:19PM

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

it was only after your crowd started funding the Islamic extremists in the 1980s did the Taliban start emerging as a potent political entity which came to dominate the country.

A state of affairs which the US has been rectifying for most of the last decade, in case you missed that bit.

NTM

Bottle_of_Smoke · 02-05-2011 06:41PM

murpho999 wrote: »

Please don't go spreading a conspiracy theory.

They have said they buried him at sea and I'm sure they'll release photos of his body soon.

I suppose you think Elvis is still alive too.

Yes I'm completely retarded because I suggested its a bit suspect they would dump the body of the most infamous man of the last 10 years. Cheers mate.

Caught · 02-05-2011 06:43PM

I'm quite confused on the whole matter.
Is there any chance that anyone who followed him will be outraged and will the terrorist attacks will become more frequent? They could get a bigger and worse leader now.

And will we ever be attacked? I'm always put off going to America because of the idea of attacks. I go every year anyway though.

Knight990 · 02-05-2011 06:47PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Yes I'm completely retarded because I suggested its a bit suspect they would dump the body of the most infamous man of the last 10 years. Cheers mate.

I agree that there is something about this whole situation that doesn't add up.

caseyann · 02-05-2011 07:20PM

You cant win one way or other,i am sorry ship all those who hate west and western culture back.Give those who wish to live out from under such control and awful lives asylum,and get all troops out of there and westerners.
And leave the melting pot of those countries to themselves.

OneOfThem Stumbled · 02-05-2011 07:28PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Yes I'm completely retarded because I suggested its a bit suspect they would dump the body of the most infamous man of the last 10 years. Cheers mate.

Hitler's body didn't last very long in the custody of the Russians.

The very fact that he was the most infamous man makes it more imperative for the US to annihilate his memory. His force for the last few years has been his symbolic influence. Killing him has little impact if his symbolic influence is maintained after death.

OneOfThem Stumbled · 02-05-2011 07:30PM

caseyann wrote: »

You cant win one way or other,i am sorry ship all those who hate west and western culture back.Give those who wish to live out from under such control and awful lives asylum,and get all troops out of there and westerners.
And leave the melting pot of those countries to themselves.

WOuldn't it be better to like... help them build up their countries than say 'yeah sure your countries are hell holes- come get asylum here'

LostinKildare · 02-05-2011 07:37PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Yes I'm completely retarded because I suggested its a bit suspect they would dump the body of the most infamous man of the last 10 years. Cheers mate.

What should they have done? Islamic law/tradition requires a speedy burial. CBS reports that the US govt tried to repatriate the body, but Saudi Arabia refused to accept it.

Years ago when US forces killed Saddam's sons they embalmed the bodies and showed them to the media to try to head off conspiracy theories, and Muslims were outraged (justifiably, imo) that the corpses were put on show.

skylight1987 · 02-05-2011 07:39PM

it has taken America ten years to get him and they are going to be delighted but some people have been handed a death sentence now, innocent people with nothing to do with this will be bombed by al qaeda

caseyann · 02-05-2011 07:39PM

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

WOuldn't it be better to like... help them build up their countries than say 'yeah sure your countries are hell holes- come get asylum here'

No get anyone who wants out from the backward militant control and danger that wants out and leave the rest to their own world.
They dont want West help,they dont want western values,and they are getting worse not better.

It would never be that simple and never will as they dont want to change.

JustinDee · 02-05-2011 07:40PM

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

Hitler's body didn't last very long in the custody of the Russians.

The very fact that he was the most infamous man makes it more imperative for the US to annihilate his memory. His force for the last few years has been his symbolic influence. Killing him has little impact if his symbolic influence is maintained after death.

His body was actually never in their custody. He and Eva Braun were torched immediately after their suicides. Nothing but ashes and ltd charred ashes.

Agree with you on why bin Ladin body would be explained away.

I'll recommend a very very good book on the Afghan problem and its effects in Steve Coll's 'Ghost Wars'. No other journalist has a grasp on this subject than this guy. Excellent read.

Mr.Micro · 02-05-2011 07:42PM

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

Hitler's body didn't last very long in the custody of the Russians.

The very fact that he was the most infamous man makes it more imperative for the US to annihilate his memory. His force for the last few years has been his symbolic influence. Killing him has little impact if his symbolic influence is maintained after death.

So by him being assassinated, effectively martyred will mean what to his followers? Hardly will it annihilate his memory, maybe from the US psyche?

Knight990 · 02-05-2011 07:44PM

skylight1987 wrote: »

it has taken America ten years to get him and they are going to be delighted but some people have been handed a death sentence now, innocent people with nothing to do with this will be bombed by al qaeda

Unfortunately, you're right about this. If ever there was going to be a retaliatory attack, this is what will spark the gunpowder.

Implications of Bin Laden's death?

Comments