Senate overwhelmingly votes to override Obama veto on 9/11 bill

a reply to: Sremmos80

It was not pertinent to the discussion.

It's a continuation of the same overall goal.

Ethnic cleansing of the middle east, and an ethnically segregated Iraqi state.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Not what I said at all, great twist tho.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Aaand there's the insults.

I was never excusing what the Japanese did, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the U.S. Our hands are not clean.

How many millions of innocent families will the U.S. have to pay restitution to after this decision?

After all, fair is fair...

Unless the argument is being made that it's okay to kill civilians if your cause is "right and just".

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
I don't even wanna think about the bill the U.S. will owe Japan...

Already been paid. we rebuilt their country if i recall.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

Japanese werent civilians during WW2. they were NCP. non commission Personnel. civilians but also considered members of the japanese defenses. they even trained them to fight if invaded.

Okay, nose buried in appropriate grind stone... the one that ties up legislation forever that, 15 years later, wants to blame a proxy ally for all the misery the US is responsible for in the Middle East?

Don't hold your breath for any genuinely Just outcome, folks.

The same miasma surrounding Emails, MH117, all the wars in the middle east, Terrorism, world orders, etc, is all distraction.

a reply to: roadgravel

The problem is this opens the door to the US being sued by the people who lived next-door to the "shock n awe" in Iraq, 2004'ish, or the families of people killed at the wedding(s) bombed by our drones, etc.

The unintended consequences of this are that we have just exposed ourselves to a lot of legal risk, and that is IF the Saudi's don't pull 1.5 trillion in US investment, which could tailspin certain areas of the economy, and so on.

a reply to: roadgravel

This is a good thing, but the Saudi's won't ever pay a dime.

Like Trump's wall, they'll make us pay for it. Our government has no money. The only money they have is what they take from us. So they will just take more when the Saudi's tell them to.

The Trump wall won't happen. Notice he doesn't talk about it much now.

Sometimes you just gotta laugh at it all. Reid voting against an Obama veto is about as likely as a dog turning down a strip of bacon. Ain't gonna happen.

Even though this appears to be going through, I have no idea if this is a good thing or not, or if it will come back to bite us somehow. I hope Congress knows and it's just not another vote buying gimmick.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Senate overwhelmingly votes to override Obama veto on 9/11 bill

Senate done good. Obama dun goofed.

This is a great example of bipartisanship overriding bad policy. Let's have more of it!

a reply to: roadgravel

I'm pretty happy with this outcome. I knew it would go down like this too. Obama had to veto because the US needs to keep face for it's treaties, and make it look like this happened through the will of the people and not the will of the government. If Obama didn't veto, we wouldn't have done enough to satisfy our allies like SA that are opposed. But, Congress basically trampled over the Executive here... it's pretty telling who the no votes were too, the highest government officials in the Senate, which again was symbolic.

Anyways, I think that short term this is going to hurt us, but at the same time I don't really care. Getting sued for war profiteering doesn't bother me in the slightest, and it gives our own people a route to justice for legitimate wrongs against them. On the flip side, the impending lawsuits act as a good deterrent to stop this type of behavior before it starts again. Perhaps it will reign in Trump or Clintons "foreign policy" a bit, as well as that of their successors.

That said, before anyone starts cheering too much remember that suing is only the first step. The second step is getting a guilty verdict out of a trial. Any trial like this is going to go on for years or decades, and states have the resources to put up legal defenses for that period of time. An ordinary citizen probably can't hire a lawyer for long, the typical case like this lasts for 10-15 years.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: shooterbrody

Aaand there's the insults.

I was never excusing what the Japanese did, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the U.S. Our hands are not clean.

How many millions of innocent families will the U.S. have to pay restitution to after this decision?

After all, fair is fair...

Unless the argument is being made that it's okay to kill civilians if your cause is "right and just".

At the time of the bombings, there were no laws against what the US did. Furthermore, Japan signed an unconditional surrender... they paid many nations war reparations (including to the US for Pearl Harbor). They wouldn't have a claim against the US here.

I think it is to keep Americans in a positive mind set for the "war on terror".

As noted. This will result in basically nothing to anybody that sues. Its limited by Sovereign Immunity and its not likely that the Saudi's will go ahead and waive that right.

Its more of a feel good and it does in and of itself point a finger at Saudi complicity be it tacit or active, in supporting terrorism. But if we are going to be fair then this should apply to the ISI for its clear assistance in keeping OBL safe as well.

What's more interesting is ISIS IMHO. Are they a country? I think not. Thus could be sued assuming that you could identify assets outside of their area of operations. You could also make a case that those claiming "allegiance" to ISIS by default are agents and thus liable as well. Again said fools would have to be out of Iraq and Syria. as said before "can open....... worms everywhere"

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: roadgravel

The problem is this opens the door to the US being sued by the people who lived next-door to the "shock n awe" in Iraq, 2004'ish, or the families of people killed at the wedding(s) bombed by our drones, etc..

Only if the US waives its Sovereign Immunity in these matters. Much like the hue and cry regarding depleted uranium munitions in DS I. Lots of talk but no suits have made it to court because its unwinnable. The same will be for the Saudi's

a reply to: FredT

ts more of a feel good and it does in and of itself point a finger at Saudi complicity be it tacit or active, in supporting terrorism. But if we are going to be fair then this should apply to the ISI for its clear assistance in keeping OBL safe as well.

Yes it is.

As much is Saudi Arabia is complicit in many ways of supporting Islamic terrorism, so too is Pakistan, and especially its military, and intelligence agency.

They actively hid OBL from western, especially the US, nations who were hunting him. So if Saudi Arabia's govt can be sued, so too, should Pakistan be. IMHO, of course.

a reply to: roadgravel


I don't know the details of this, but When R and D come together to pass a bill we typically get fd.

This will surely come back to bite us.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: roadgravel

The problem is this opens the door to the US being sued by the people who lived next-door to the "shock n awe" in Iraq, 2004'ish, or the families of people killed at the wedding(s) bombed by our drones, etc.

The unintended consequences of this are that we have just exposed ourselves to a lot of legal risk, and that is IF the Saudi's don't pull 1.5 trillion in US investment, which could tailspin certain areas of the economy, and so on.

Short term this will be bad if it's retroactive, but long term maybe it will prevent future conflicts? Although I'm highly skeptical of D and R coming together for our benefit over corporations.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: shooterbrody

Aaand there's the insults.

I was never excusing what the Japanese did, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the U.S. Our hands are not clean.

How many millions of innocent families will the U.S. have to pay restitution to after this decision?

After all, fair is fair...

Unless the argument is being made that it's okay to kill civilians if your cause is "right and just".

You brought up the Japanese no one else. Now when they are shown to be the barbarians they were at the time you squeal "I wasnt excusing what they did."
BS you tried to compare civillian deaths. You included figures. You conveniently left out the atrocities committed by the cult that followed the emperor.
Now you just want to expose us hypocrisy? Was the us involvement in ww2 hypocrisy?
There are reasons to insult the us , ww2 was not one of them. You trying to use it as one is daft, thats a fact not an insult