Robert O'Neill, the SEAL who killed Bin Laden, calls Trump's military parade "third world BS"

[TheGreatA]

/s ?

OBL attached knowing for the price of pilot training for a few hijackers he could get the us into a many years long very costly drawn out conflict due to the heavy response of the military and at the same time let us galvanize Muslim world opinion against us due to our on actions.

If you think a parade would have scared him away, I'm not saying you are a retard, but that is something a retard might think.

The military parade is merely an outward representation of an accumulation of factors that serve to unite a population behind its military.

I do believe that an adept representation of America's strength and unity to the outside world, would've kept OBL from doing anything. Men like Osama Bin Laden raise their heads, when others are at their weakest. He is a very, very basic Arab "warlord" in that regard. You never hear of them when you're strong, only when you're deemed weak. Same goes for ISIS and al-Bagdadi.

I'm not saying that a military parade alone wouldn't prevented the feat, I'm merely saying that an America capable of standing united behind its military, is an America that is unlikely to be messed with, by the outside world.

An America that is unable to come together behind its leader and military, to the point where throwing a military parade is beyond their capabilities, and where their President is simply thought of as a vapid buffoon, is an America that's going to be deemed weak by men such as Osama Bin Laden. These sorts of people only represent crude displays of strength and power.

Call me suspicious but the quality of your written English makes me doubt your claim.

If I'm really wrong take it as a compliment I guess.

I make typographical errors all over the place. I just know a lot of words, and put them together in sentences that roughly represent the English standard.

 

[TheGreatA]

It's odd to see you talk about how it supports nationalism in their own country when you on the first page wrote that nobody actually thinks that these parades are intended for the domestic populations.

But I agree with your current statement, it has more to do with trying to create nationalistic pride, etc. I still reject the notion that anyone is afraid of that a country has some parades. There's nothing a parade is showing that potential enemies doesn't already know. What matters are the political relationships between nations and the willingness of one side to provoke and threat the other. Parades play no relevant part there.

The US hasn't had any military marches, yet they have been extremely military active around the world, so clearly they don't need to have their soldiers prance around some streets to show that. North Korea has plenty of marches but no one takes them seriously in that they would actually launch soldiers against any other country. The only reason they have been talked about as a threat is their nuclear weapons program and extremely provocative statements, and the reasons they might want to show other countries military marches is because they are desperate to show NK as organized and thriving, although no one is buying that. And why would anyone care if Russia has parades or not when they've actually taken Crimea?

Countries can have whatever parades they want, but in most cases a military one won't have any effect on any other country.

I meant that in the West, a military parade wouldn't be meant for domestic populations. Because there is obviously no way to go back to militarism or nationalist jingoism, for academically educated populations. But my point was that the West could still hold military parades, to satisfy the people who do enjoy such parades, and to send a strong message of unity to the outside world, to cruder places in the world where strength and iron rule, and where the lack of nationalism/militarism is seen as a weakness to be exploited.

I believe a part of the reason why America has to be extremely militarily active around the world, is because they don't portray themselves strongly enough to the outside world, except when they drop the hammer on them. But I think America needs to gradually move away from showing their strength through military action, to showing their strength in alternative ways.

I believe military parades and other sorts of more vague, theatrical displays of strength, are a much preferable option to foreign invasions and special operations. Obviously this Navy SEAL probably holds a different opinion. Part of that is probably because he enjoys killing third world dudes who have taken action in their own countries under the false illusion that America isn't willing to fight. Which is an illusion that is easy to come to believe considering how bipolar the Americans seem and how their pro-war/anti-war messages appear to be very contradicting of each other.

Some dude like Al-Bagdadi of ISIS can easily come to believe that after Obama is chosen president, wins the Nobel Peace Prize, and pulls out of Iraq, promising to not go to war, that Americans have essentially taken themselves out of the war business, and that jihadists now have a free reign in the Middle East. But that was obviously a huge miscalculation on Bagdadi's part.

 

[Mike Hagger]

Who cares what this schmuck says? His team and him killing Bin Laden, great Americans. Everything he has done since then, complete embarrassment.

Make your own decision about the parade this guy is no authority on humility.

 

[MicroBrew]

The military parade is merely an outward representation of an accumulation of factors that serve to unite a population behind its military.

I do believe that an adept representation of America's strength and unity to the outside world, would've kept OBL from doing anything. Men like Osama Bin Laden raise their heads, when others are at their weakest. He is a very, very basic Arab "warlord" in that regard. You never hear of them when you're strong, only when you're deemed weak. Same goes for ISIS and al-Bagdadi.

I'm not saying that a military parade alone wouldn't prevented the feat, I'm merely saying that an America capable of standing united behind its military, is an America that is unlikely to be messed with, by the outside world.

An America that is unable to come together behind its leader and military, to the point where throwing a military parade is beyond their capabilities, and where their President is simply thought of as a vapid buffoon, is an America that's going to be deemed weak by men such as Osama Bin Laden. These sorts of people only represent crude displays of strength and power.



I make typographical errors all over the place. I just know a lot of words, and put them together in sentences that roughly represent the English standard.

A military parade would not deter guys like OBL, because nothing is going to deter them from trying to push their agenda. Other nations aren't going to be deterred by a parade either. What will be a deterrence is a tough American foreign policy and history of severe retaliation against anyone attempting any kind of attack. No one is deterred from attacking NK because of their parades; the deterrent is NK having nukes.

 

[MicroBrew]

Who cares what this schmuck says? His team and him killing Bin Laden, great Americans. Everything he has done since then, complete embarrassment.

Make your own decision about the parade this guy is no authority on humility.

Atleast he did something good and risked his life, whereas Trump done neither, but wants a parade.

 

[RockstarChris]

i wonder what his views are on the 2nd amendment.

 

[Squarechoke]

I meant that in the West, a military parade wouldn't be meant for domestic populations. Because there is obviously no way to go back to militarism or nationalist jingoism, for academically educated populations. But my point was that the West could still hold military parades, to satisfy the people who do enjoy such parades, and to send a strong message of unity to the outside world, to cruder places in the world where strength and iron rule, and where the lack of nationalism/militarism is seen as a weakness to be exploited.

I believe a part of the reason why America has to be extremely militarily active around the world, is because they don't portray themselves strongly enough to the outside world, except when they drop the hammer on them. But I think America needs to gradually move away from showing their strength through military action, to showing their strength in alternative ways.

I believe military parades and other sorts of more vague, theatrical displays of strength, are a much preferable option to foreign invasions and special operations. Obviously this Navy SEAL probably holds a different opinion. Part of that is probably because he enjoys killing third world dudes who have taken action in their own countries under the false illusion that America isn't willing to fight. Which is an illusion that is easy to come to believe considering how bipolar the Americans seem and how their pro-war/anti-war messages appear to be very contradicting of each other.

Some dude like Al-Bagdadi of ISIS can easily come to believe that after Obama is chosen president, wins the Nobel Peace Prize, and pulls out of Iraq, promising to not go to war, that Americans have essentially taken themselves out of the war business, and that jihadists now have a free reign in the Middle East. But that was obviously a huge miscalculation on Bagdadi's part.

We're clearly of very different opinions on this. I don't think that anyone is scared of a parade that doesn't show more than a small fraction of the military power of a nation. It's just not a show of strength to people with the capacity to think. The biggest deterrent to war between powerful nations are WMD's on the level of nuclear bombs. Those are not what military parades are there to show off.

The US actually taking action means nearly infinitely more, because that shows that not only do they have a ton of military power, they are also willing to use it. They don't need any parades to make people remember that even when they are inactive.

I also don't exactly think that Al-Baghdadi or OSL would think "ha, the US has said they aren't going to war, they are now weak. Attack! Oh shit, they have a military parade. Abort, abort!". Wasting the military on parades actually rather does seem like something a nation with no intention of going to war would do. Also, don't forget that Trump went to election with policies like that he'd bring the US troops back from Afghanistan, yet he's talking about having military parades. Of course the US has more of a presence in Afghanistan now than before he became president, but that's really a different matter.

 

[TheGreatA]

We're clearly of very different opinions on this. I don't think that anyone is scared of a parade that doesn't show more than a small fraction of the military power of a nation. It's just not a show of strength to people with the capacity to think. The biggest deterrent to war between powerful nations are WMD's on the level of nuclear bombs. Those are not what military parades are there to show off.

The US actually taking action means nearly infinitely more, because that shows that not only do they have a ton of military power, they are also willing to use it. They don't need any parades to make people remember that even when they are inactive.

I also don't exactly think that Al-Baghdadi or OSL would think "ha, the US has said they aren't going to war, they are now weak. Attack! Oh shit, they have a military parade. Abort, abort!". Wasting the military on parades actually rather does seem like something a nation with no intention of going to war would do. Also, don't forget that Trump went to election with policies like that he'd bring the US troops back from Afghanistan, yet he's talking about having military parades. Of course the US has more of a presence in Afghanistan now than before he became president, but that's really a different matter.

You're missing the point. The parade itself is not what is going to deter any attack. It's giving an outward appearance of unity and militarism to foreign countries, something that the West currently is unable to do. And will be unable to do, as we descend further and further away from the crude realities of military action.

Whether that's good and bad, depends fully on how that descend from militarism is perceived by those who still subscribe to it.

A military parade would not deter guys like OBL, because nothing is going to deter them from trying to push their agenda. Other nations aren't going to be deterred by a parade either. What will be a deterrence is a tough American foreign policy and history of severe retaliation against anyone attempting any kind of attack. No one is deterred from attacking NK because of their parades; the deterrent is NK having nukes.

What was the deterrent before they had nukes?

The deterrent to attacking North Korea aren't their largely ineffective nukes, which they've only recently developed. The deterrent is that they have a brain-washed, fully dedicated population that stands united behind its leadership and military, willing to exercise disproportionate amounts of brutality in order to defend their interests. Attacking them would mean putting one's self through hell, in order to displace the current regime. Something comparable to Imperial Japan, and certainly, the Viet Cong.

The parades are merely an outward representation of that unity and zealousness which they possess. Something that Americans no longer possess, and certainly, none of the rest of the West. If North Korea was a borderline anarchistic piece of shit country, which could only throw together a half-assed military march every once in a while, while the population rolled their eyes at their fat dweeb of a leader, riddled with scandals, they'd be treated like all the other banana fascist regimes that ever existed, meaning with total disrespect and disregard. The fear that they generate, is the result of the appearance of near-mythical unity that they've cultivated over the years.

If the United States did possess such unity, do you really think some Arab warlord would raise his head against America? Where were these Arab warlords under the rule of the British Empire? The only strike when they deem the opposition to be weak and divided, easily conquered. That has been the case for the past 1500 years or so. Even ancient Berber historians noted that Arab bandits were easily scattered as long as a united front was presented to them. Osama, ISIS, and the rest of the jihad squad, are nothing more than the latest of the bunch.

Just read Bin-Laden's own words on the subject:

"Look at Vietnam, look at Lebanon. Whenever soldiers start coming home in body bags, Americans panic and retreat. Such a country needs only to be confronted with two or three sharp blows, then it will flee in panic, as it always has."

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

 

[Squarechoke]

You're missing the point. The parade itself is not what is going to deter any attack. It's giving an outward appearance of unity and militarism to foreign countries, something that the West currently is unable to do. And will be unable to do, as we descend further and further away from the crude realities of military action.

Whether that's good and bad, depends fully on how that descend from militarism is perceived by those who still subscribe to it.



What was the deterrent before they had nukes?

The deterrent to attacking North Korea aren't their largely ineffective nukes, which they've only recently developed. The deterrent is that they have a brain-washed, fully dedicated population that stands united behind its leadership and military, willing to exercise disproportionate amounts of brutality in order to defend their interests. Attacking them would mean putting one's self through hell, in order to displace the current regime. Something comparable to Imperial Japan, and certainly, the Viet Cong.

The parades are merely an outward representation of that unity and zealousness which they possess. Something that Americans no longer possess, and certainly, none of the rest of the West. If North Korea was a borderline anarchistic piece of shit country, which could only throw together a half-assed military march every once in a while, while the population rolled their eyes at their fat dweeb of a leader, riddled with scandals, they'd be treated like all the other banana fascist regimes that ever existed, meaning with total disrespect and disregard. The fear that they generate, is the result of the appearance of near-mythical unity that they've cultivated over the years.

If the United States did possess such unity, do you really think some Arab warlord would raise his head against America? Where were these Arab warlords under the rule of the British Empire? The only strike when they deem the opposition to be weak and divided, easily conquered. That has been the case for the past 1500 years or so. Even ancient Berber historians noted that Arab bandits were easily scattered as long as a united front was presented to them. Osama, ISIS, and the rest of the jihad squad, are nothing more than the latest of the bunch.

Just read Bin-Laden's own words on the subject:

"Look at Vietnam, look at Lebanon. Whenever soldiers start coming home in body bags, Americans panic and retreat. Such a country needs only to be confronted with two or three sharp blows, then it will flee in panic, as it always has."

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

I was exaggerating a bit to make my point a bit funnier, but I still don't think it has any relevant effect. The US hasn't had parades, France has had them for nearly 140 years, yet it's the former that has the benefit of reputation, even when looking at them at their respective sizes.

NK doesn't really need a deterrent since no one is interested in attacking them, so that was a minor point.

Yes, I certainly think the people that have attacked the US in any way would still have done so if they had parades and other insignificant things. That would do absolutely nothing to make people fine with American soldiers dying in unnecessary wars. The American war machine is still going strong, and it doesn't even matter who the president is, it rolls on regardless, which we see in how the presidents' policies change when they get into power and get affected by the lobbyism and other power factors. As for OBL's words, the Americans certainly didn't panic and retreat until he was dead. He's just spurting propaganda for his side, which I find pretty obvious. No one is talking well about their enemies when things are serious.