So much for freedom of the press

I'm fine with what happened, but what happened were crimes. Should those involved have been prosecuted? It really is a very difficult ethical dilemna. I was asking you a question that included both time and context. Sorry if the answer is hard for you to conceive. Here's the fact--if the Germans had done what we did and we still won, we would have executed everyone involved for war crimes. Plain 'n simple.

They were barbarous adversaries. We were just a little more barbarous, so we won.

 

matlock =

 

Sorry troll, I don't believe one word of this or any other post you vomit here. Good luck on your internet ********* career. Maybe your mom should have bought you a life instead of a POS degree.

 

I think its more that you were asking a question that included both hemophiliac liberalism, and a defeatist and apologist outlook that is hard for me to conceive.

In August of 1945 we were not going to lose the war. The decision to be made was how to end a war with the smallest loss of life. If you think that's barbarous, go ahead. Or tell us a better way.

 

All successful attorneys spend 30 hours a week arguing on the internet.

 

"Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute." Who said that? As I recall, the context was that American shipping in the Med was being interdicted by the Barbary Pirates. So we sent a naval taskforce that was utterly unfunded (again, as I recall, it was sent out too far to return before the final funding measures were put to congress) and unauthorized by congress to do anything. The taskforce then proceeded to kick the collective azzes of the Barbary Pirates (essentially 18th century versions of the same azzholes we're fighting today) and that allowed US trade and safe passage in the Med thenceforward.

That would be one example of our 'Founders' doing precisely what W and Obama have been getting up to.

Another would be both 'Big George' Washington and Benjamin 'Bunga Bunga Party' Franklin operating their own espionage networks during the revolution. And both issued 'hits' on various people during that time when said people got a little too frisky. Not much mentioined in their official biographies or dwelt upon overmuch in the high schools. And they're about as founder-ish as they come.

 

That's about as revisionist an account of Tripoli as I've seen. We had at one time up to then spent as much as 1/6 of the budget on tribute and ransom and the Treaty of Tripoli included a payment of $60,000 for "ransom" (not "tribute") of the soldiers involved there. We didn't occupy Tripoli or attempt to change the government. We dealt with a rational enemy who decided a smaller payment than they had at first demanded would be cheaper than all of the assets they'd expend dealing with the American Navy and their mercenaries. And the piracy threat to American shipping was a huge economic issue with hundreds of American sailors being seized and presed into slavery.

What makes present day terrorism so bad is not the actual terror acts themselves, but the highly disproportionate response of the American government.

 

They call it "voir dire practice".

 

Thats How he can Pay off those Loans so fast, Playin on the {Puter while Billing clients

 

**** off. I'll take Dave Ramsey's opinion WAY over yours chump. Besides, he ain't a ****ing liar. You are. You cannot correct me because you are wrong, and I am right. See how that works?

 

Well, let's agree that 'the Founders' were not the rigidly (dare we say 'Calvinistically') moralistic folk you purported in your earlier post. Those guys who wouldn't do ANYTHING that wasn't fully vetted by and transparent to 'The Public'. In fact, they played fast and loose with both laws and the constitution to get done what they needed to get done. And did so time after time. And, you know what? It's a naughty little secret that our system of government might just be designed to work that way. Constant tension and toing and froing. So, Bradley Manning might well find himself the focus of a supreme court case...and he might just be executed before it comes to be heard.

As to the 'disproportionate' response of the US government to acts of terror, I'd prefer you made that argument to a group of 9/11 survivors, you might find they have a disproportionate response to your disregard for the lives of their loved ones. There's value to azzholes around the world knowing that, push comes to shove, we will hunt them down and kill them, no matter how long it takes or how hard it is. Keeps the world balanced.

 

The trade centers destroyed and the pentagon severely damaged along with 3,000 dead really wasn't that big of a deal.

 

You're still talking about that?

 

I don't know why but it just popped into my head.

 

And what did Iraq have to do with that, exactly?

And how has invading Afghanistan and replacing its government for a few years done anything to prevent the next 9/11?

Has the Patriot Act protected us? How about those fancy TSA officers?

 

We apparently didn't bomb enough civilians to prevent the bombing in Boston

 

I didn't say Iraq had a thing to do with 9/11.

I also didn't say we properly pursued the Afghanistan war.

We should have obliterated Afghanistan and then left...even if we were guilty of war crimes through "collateral damage". And assured the Afghans that if it happened again we would obliterate their country again.

But, I'm sure that is a little draconian for your tastes as I'm sure you would rather pay them off to not attack us again.

 

Watching Iraq over the past few weeks has convinced me it is the next Syria. Before it is all said and done I bet a million people will die.

 

We shouldn't have intervened in Iraq and we shouldn't have intervened in Libya. Hopefully we don't make the same mistake with syria.

 

All kidding aside, this is it. It's the only thing that'll keep these savages from doing what they do.