[mikestew]

> Was the United States not supposed to go after Osama Bin Laden?

Not at any cost, no. Now what with all of the "America...fuck yeah!" rhetoric after Bin Laden was killed, I gather that I might be writing for the minority opinion.

How many kids will die because they now won't be getting polio vaccines? How does that number compare to the number killed at the World Trade Center? If the numbers are comparable, then we figure brown kids have less value than Wall Street bankers? So, maybe apply a value of two-thirds (I'm pulling numbers that have been used in the past) one brown kid for someone working in NYC? If not, then what's the math that we can agree on?

It was all just a revenge killing anyway. Are we now safer with Bin Laden dead? I'm open to opposing opinions, but as far as I can tell we haven't improved anything.

[dan_bk]

> If the numbers are comparable, then we figure brown kids have less value than Wall Street bankers?

We all know we do exactly that, even if we don't like to admit it. Our inaction is the proof.

There are thousands of questions like this one that we should have been asking ourselves for a very long time, but never did, on a societal level.

[poof131]

Of course not at any cost. The irony of this tragedy is that the intent of the operation was to mitigate the possibility of collateral damage and going after the wrong target. I'm pretty sure Cowboy Bush would have been all in at the mention of Osama and never done the vaccination op.

To depict targeting Osama as a revenge killing is not right. I try to empathize with the grievances he had and represents against the US, but I believe the world is better off without him. We don't need people who inspire others to suicide and homicide in the name of religion.

[lotsofmangos]

“Jacques,” he said, “You and I share a common faith. You’re Roman Catholic, I’m Methodist, but we are both Christians committed to the teachings of the Bible. We share one common Lord”

Chirac said nothing. He didn’t know where Bush was going with this.

“Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East,” Bush said. ‘’Biblical prophecies are being fulfilled.”

Gog and Magog? What was that?, thought Chirac.

“This confrontation,” Bush said, “is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a new age begins.”

Chirac was bewildered. The American president, he thought, sounded dangerously fanatical.

After the call ended, Chirac called together his senior staff members and relayed the conversation.

“He said, ‘Gog and Magog.’ Do any of you know what he is talking about?”

Blank faces and head shakes.

“Find out,” Chirac said.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/10/kurt-eichenwald-50...

[poof131]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. Violence in the name of religion is wrong no matter the side. While I disagree with the war in Iraq and only wish the best for the Iraqi people, to draw too much of a parallel between Bush and Osama I wouldn't say is fair.

I also think it distracts from the more important issues: The continuous belief in Washington that they can play with peoples lives like chess pieces and shape a better world through violence. [1], [2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Life_in_the_Emerald_Ci... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_and_the_Brightest

[lotsofmangos]

Only half of the hawks are playing cynical power games, the rest of them think they are in the middle of a religious war as foretold by prophecy. Unless you understand that many of our leaders and armed forces are literally involved in a crusade, then you will never get a handle on middle eastern policy.

edit - and the most dangerous are those who don't believe, but claim faith for leverage. Those are the people who will go into a 'final war' with an eye on the spoils. The true believer doesn't believe there will be spoils at that point.

[lawnchair_larry]

Who was present for all of these detailed conversations as a source for the author?

[lotsofmangos]

Jacques Chirac has apparently confirmed the account - http://www.alternet.org/story/140221/bush%27s_shocking_bibli...

The original source appears to be the theologian Dr. Thomas Romer, whose expertise was sought to try and work out what Bush was going on about.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/08/gog-magog-and-...

Of course, they all have it wrong. As anybody knows, Gog and Magog are the two giants who defend the City of London on behalf of the Lord Mayor.

http://www.lordmayorsshow.org/history/gog-and-magog

[lawnchair_larry]

What about the rest of the article? The conversations between Blair and Putin, etc.

[lotsofmangos]

Is a long article, I am sure some bits are more accurate than others as it will be made up of several sources and I cannot be bothered to fact check the entire piece, sorry.

The conversation I referenced was something I had previously read in a different article and it was quoted specifically to make a point about the assertion "We don't need people who inspire others to suicide and homicide in the name of religion.", namely the point that not only do the leaders on both sides do that, but Bush tried to do it to the leader of another nuclear power, in the language of end-time theology.

Which isn't just a bit off-key, but rather is completely fucking bat-shit.

[srean]

...and I thought this was a scene from a Coen brothers movie, it is that bizarre.

[lotsofmangos]

Ronald Reagan riffing on that theme is equally mental:

"Ezekiel tells us that Gog, the nation that will lead all of the other powers of darkness against Israel, will come out of the north. Biblical scholars have been saying for generations that Gog must be Russia. What other powerful nation is to the north of Israel? None. But it didn’t seem to make sense before the Russian revolution, when Russia was a Christian country. Now it does, now that Russia has become Communistic and atheistic, now that Russia has set itself against God. Now it fits the description of Gog perfectly."