PearlHowardman Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 Anytime a President authorizes the KILLING of someone, especially by the US military in international waters, a Congressional investigation should immediately follow. The Congressional report is the ONLY report that matters. Period. It is VERY likely that these moron pirates should have not been killed. If that's the case, what does that make President Obama? Two dead foreigners by the command of President Obama and a lot of unanswered questions. (blzrul- PLEASE stay out of this thread) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 Anytime a President authorizes the KILLING of someone, especially by the US military in international waters, a Congressional investigation should immediately follow. The Congressional report is the ONLY report that matters. Period. It is VERY likely that these moron pirates should have not been killed. If that's the case, what does that make President Obama? Two dead foreigners by the command of President Obama and a lot of unanswered questions. (blzrul- PLEASE stay out of this thread) Holy crap you are retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 Anytime a President authorizes the KILLING of someone, especially by the US military in international waters, a Congressional investigation should immediately follow. The Congressional report is the ONLY report that matters. Period. It is VERY likely that these moron pirates should have not been killed. If that's the case, what does that make President Obama? Two dead foreigners by the command of President Obama and a lot of unanswered questions. (blzrul- PLEASE stay out of this thread) Oh so it's only bad when a President designates specific people to be killed is that it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 So you would have no problem with the 60-70 million gun owners in this country shooting each other?in fact hope for it? What a strange twisted world you live in. 1) Well, why would you want to shoot at UNARMED people? That doesn't make sense at all. It wouldn't be self-defense. Unless they had bombs I suppose but I don't see too many people running around with bombs, grenades or other stuff. So yes, get your guns and shoot if you must, but shoot at other people with guns. 2) 60-70 millions people out of 300m+ is definitely a minority. So be happy the majority lets you keep your guns to shoot at each other. For the record I would prefer that noone shot a gun at anyone. But since I doubt there are 60-70 million hunters in this county, I can't see a reason for all those freaking guns. Living in a wilderness area I can definitely see the need for a gun, but not that many people do so. I don't care if you all have to have your guns, just be responsible and make sure they don't get into the wrong hands and if you have to shoot someone, shoot someone with a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 I don't care if you all have to have your guns, just be responsible and make sure they don't get into the wrong hands. The same way the government makes sure illegal drugs don't "get into the wrong hands"? Chipping away another layer of stupidity, one post at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Two pirates from Somalia were killed by the American military per Obama's authorization. Snipers actually did the killing. Snipers do one thing - aim, lock on a target, shoot and - DEAD! They don't negotiate. A congressional review as to whether the pirates actually NEEDED to be killed should be automatic. No? If it can be determined that the pirates didn't actually NEED to be killed, that other options weren't acted on, well then Obama should......you figure it out. Killing foreigners in international waters per Commander In Chief authorization is very serious business! If you don't have a good reason to kill, then you have some serious explaining to do. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Oh so it's only bad when a President designates specific people to be killed is that it? No. Only when their killing was not warranted. This is why a detailed investigation of the killing of the two Somali pirates is required. We need to make sure that Obama's authorization was justified and the killing was warranted. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 No. Only when their killing was not warranted. This is why a detailed investigation of the killing of the two Somali pirates is required. We need to make sure that Obama's authorization was justified and the killing was warranted. Right? We don't have time for that. We're too busy trying to figure out what to do with two Americans whose idea of torture was spilling some water on a guy responsible for the death of 3000 people. But hey...other countries like us now, so that's something. And really, it's not about the three who died, but the one who lived. In due time, the one brought here for trial will get a place to live, maybe a per diem, and if ACORN is on their game, he'll be a registered voter right behind the 27 illegals in Seattle before you can say "Obama in 2012." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 No. Only when their killing was not warranted. This is why a detailed investigation of the killing of the two Somali pirates is required. We need to make sure that Obama's authorization was justified and the killing was warranted. Right? Ask your Congressional representative to investigate then. It's your right. But if the investigation then spills over to the military personnel who carried out the orders and impugns their integrity...you can live with that. You are the only **** who seems to have a problem with this, but you have every right to ask for an investigation. Which you would if you had any cojones. Instead you'll just continue to harangue a handfull of people who largely think the bastards had it coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 How do you know all of this? Don't you think the President of the United States authorizing the killing of ANYONE warrants review? While I'm sure you have the sarcasm button on, just in case you don't, you may want to familiarize yourself with international maritime law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Here's one from a friend I consulted on the topic of those who take exception to the President authorizing the US military to use deadly force to save an American life in this situation: "As a Army Reservist (ret), the breed of people who think this way are the cowards that would never THINK about sacrificing their lives....." Not my words. Someone who was willing to kill or die for strangers and believes that "they had it coming." I am sure Obama does lots of other stuff you can pick on, but I don't think many people would disagree with the decision except for blindly partisan idiots who would rather have seen Capt Phillips shot or beheaded, live and in person, all in the name of partisan politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 It was actually THREE. Glad to see you know what's going on in the world. Had those inept hapless pirates beheaded the American captain I would LOVE to have heard your take on THAT. How this relates to replacing Justice Souter...who can tell. Buy all the damned guns you want. Obama doesn't want your guns. And hopefully all you nuts with guns will shoot each other. Just don't take out any innocent people in the crossfire. 1) Well, why would you want to shoot at UNARMED people? That doesn't make sense at all. It wouldn't be self-defense. Unless they had bombs I suppose but I don't see too many people running around with bombs, grenades or other stuff. So yes, get your guns and shoot if you must, but shoot at other people with guns.2) 60-70 millions people out of 300m+ is definitely a minority. So be happy the majority lets you keep your guns to shoot at each other. For the record I would prefer that noone shot a gun at anyone. But since I doubt there are 60-70 million hunters in this county, I can't see a reason for all those freaking guns. Living in a wilderness area I can definitely see the need for a gun, but not that many people do so. I don't care if you all have to have your guns, just be responsible and make sure they don't get into the wrong hands and if you have to shoot someone, shoot someone with a gun. How do you hope for something yesterday,and prefer it not happen today? What a compassionate,enlightened,silly putty liberal. Do you have any real beliefs at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 How do you hope for something yesterday,and prefer it not happen today? What a compassionate,enlightened,silly putty liberal. Do you have any real beliefs at all? Sure do. I believe it's easy to get you all torqued up, over nothing. KaBOOM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Here's one from a friend I consulted on the topic of those who take exception to the President authorizing the US military to use deadly force to save an American life in this situation: Again, how do we know that the Obama authorized killing of the Somali pirates saved an American life. Are you and your friend saying that there were NO non-deadly alternatives? We need to find out if Obama made the right decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 I am sure Obama does lots of other stuff you can pick on, but I don't think many people would disagree with the decision except for blindly partisan idiots who would rather have seen Capt Phillips shot or beheaded, live and in person, all in the name of partisan politics. I don't know how you can say that people would agree or disagree with Obama's decision since none of us know the full story. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a Congressional investigation of any US President who authorizes US Navy Seal snipers to kill anyone. I did send requests for an investigation to New York Senators Schumer and Gillibrand. Then I realized that the main witnesses, the Somali pirates, are now DEAD, per President Obama's authorization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 I don't know how you can say that people would agree or disagree with Obama's decision since none of us know the full story. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a Congressional investigation of any US President who authorizes US Navy Seal snipers to kill anyone. I did send requests for an investigation to New York Senators Schumer and Gillibrand. Then I realized that the main witnesses, the Somali pirates, are now DEAD, per President Obama's authorization. Really? No live witnesses? Except the Navy SEALS and all the video footage. Not to mention Captain Phillips, who probably got some blood spatter on him. It must get dark and lonely with your head stuck so far where the sun don't shine. Oh then again, perhaps you're right. I bet those pirates were in reality third cousins to Obama would could attest that not only was he not born a US Citizen but is indeed a Muslim and intends to deliver us all over to Allah...thus, he ordered them silenced forever, using our brave soldiers as his unwitting instruments of death. Yea, maybe that's it. You could be onto something there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Sure do. I believe it's easy to get you all torqued up, over nothing. KaBOOM. the KaBOOM was a real clever joke. Did you rooster your thumb back when you typed it? You are a perfect caricature of a no facts,all emotion liberal. Heck you may anchor MSNBC some day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Really? No live witnesses? Except the Navy SEALS and all the video footage. Not to mention Captain Phillips, who probably got some blood spatter on him. We need to hear President Obama explain that he had NO choice but to have the US Navy snipers kill the Somali pirates. We need to hear him explain that peaceful, diplomatic, non-deadly options were fully exhausted before he gave the go ahead to have the pirates heads blown off. To my knowledge, no other country, not even NATO authorizes snipers to kill pirates like Obama authorized here. So, why did Obama have the pirates killed like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 While I'm sure you have the sarcasm button on, just in case you don't, you may want to familiarize yourself with international maritime law. No, I'm being not sarcastic. I don't need to be familiar with maritime law to expect a Congressional investigation as to why President Obama authorized US Navy snipers to kill two Somali pirates. We need to know what other non-deadly options failed way before Obama authorized their killings. Far too many unanswered questions here. Pity the pirates are DEAD. We'll never get their side of the story. They're guilty as hell for piracy but we're not certain that they should have been killed. I guess that's lucky for Obama...somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 YOU can buy all the guns you want.. Try finding ammunition!! With all of the "End of Day's" types paranoid that Obama will take their rights away ammo is becoming scarce. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/04/ammo.shortage/index.html http://www.tricities.com/tri/news/local/ar...t_supply/21644/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts