August 27, 200520 yr "Pat Robertson is an idiot. Not only that, but he's a hypocritical idiot. If we were so hot for toppling dictators, he really ought to stop making millions of dollars off them.Not that there'd be much wrong with killing Hugo Chávez. If there's one thing Ayn Rand got right, it's this: No dictatorship has any right to exist; any free nation wishing to topple a dictatorship has the moral right (but not the moral obligation) to do so. Failing that, knocking off the dictator certainly couldn't do any harm. But Robertson is still an idiot" italics mine Link <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hugo Chavez is the democratically elected president of Venezuela.
August 28, 200520 yr Author yeah, this is exactly what's wrong with all those Christian fundies: stop abortion but they are big supporter of the death penalty. Speak of conflicting morals <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Another apples and oranges argument! Protecting innocent life is one thing. Exacting punishment on sociopathic, psychopathic felons who have been/are/will be nothing more than a burden to society is quite another. They are usually guilty as heck and have it coming to them. (Or maybe we should do like you hero Castro, and put all of our lifers on the boat to Cuba and tell them not to come back.) Not that I'm a Bible-thumper or anything, but the commandment is more accurately translated to shall not commit murder, rather than the new age version fo shall not kill. (Also not anti-abortion per se. It's a woman's right to choose up to a certain point, about 24 weeks. After that, it's been proven that children can survive, so it's very obvious that terminating after that is taking a life. I don't like government intervention, but if there are opposing sides, there has to be a line in the sand.) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you a good Christian spee ? do you know the 10 commandment ? do you actually understand them ? Shall not kill or (murder for that matter) doesn't give you the right to commit more murders, because at the end, death penalty is murder. So how do you resolve that MISTER ? 2 wrongs doesn't make one right
August 28, 200520 yr Well, tell y'all somethin'...if it meant taking out Saddam before the I-Rak War started and thus saving almost 2k American lives in the process... figure that one out there, B-Fly?
August 28, 200520 yr Well, tell y'all somethin'...if it meant taking out Saddam before the I-Rak War started and thus saving almost 2k American lives in the process...figure that one out there, B-Fly? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think that assassinating national leaders as legitimized part of any countries foreign policy (even if there some arguement can be made that might seem to justify it) will overall create a climate of distrust and misunderstanding between nations and in the end international diplomacy breaks down and war is the result. Some people say that all wars are caused by the failure of international diplomacy...if they are correct then assassination of foreign leaders would assuredly be a cause of war. Also, every country has a different view about what could constitute the validation of the assassinating of a national leader and almost assuredly the leader of the US would be seen as a valid target by some countries...argueing that assassination of national leaders should be accepted as appropriate as an element of foreign policy is equivalent to putting virtually every national leader into the assassin's crosshairs .
August 28, 200520 yr Well, tell y'all somethin'...if it meant taking out Saddam before the I-Rak War started and thus saving almost 2k American lives in the process...figure that one out there, B-Fly? . Also, every country has a different view about what could constitute the validation of the assassinating of a national leader and almost assuredly the leader of the US would be seen as a valid target by some countries...argueing that assassination of national leaders should be accepted as appropriate as an element of foreign policy is equivalent to putting virtually every national leader into the assassin's crosshairs . It's already occured - recall Castro 'taking out' JFK?
August 28, 200520 yr Author Well, tell y'all somethin'...if it meant taking out Saddam before the I-Rak War started and thus saving almost 2k American lives in the process...figure that one out there, B-Fly? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually it's more like 8000 dead US soldiers according to the latest memos circulating around in the Pentagon So I guess it would have been better to call for Bush assassination to prevent those official "2000" dead US soldiers and the 100,000 dead Iraqis See, I told you, Bush is not going to heaven despite calling himself a "born again" Christian
August 28, 200520 yr Well, tell y'all somethin'...if it meant taking out Saddam before the I-Rak War started and thus saving almost 2k American lives in the process...figure that one out there, B-Fly? Actually it's more like 8000 dead US soldiers according to the latest memos circulating around in the Pentagon So I guess it would have been better to call for Bush assassination to prevent those official "2000" dead US soldiers and the 100,000 dead Iraqis See, I told you, Bush is not going to heaven despite calling himself a "born again" Christian There you go again with you erronious, appeasier, defeatist figures, B-Fly. Check again...it's <2k Combat deaths.
August 28, 200520 yr Well, tell y'all somethin'...if it meant taking out Saddam before the I-Rak War started and thus saving almost 2k American lives in the process...figure that one out there, B-Fly? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> . Also, every country has a different view about what could constitute the validation of the assassinating of a national leader and almost assuredly the leader of the US would be seen as a valid target by some countries...argueing that assassination of national leaders should be accepted as appropriate as an element of foreign policy is equivalent to putting virtually every national leader into the assassin's crosshairs . <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's already occured - recall Castro 'taking out' JFK? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you saying it is a legitimate action for any nation to target the leaders of other countries for assassination?
August 28, 200520 yr Author Well, tell y'all somethin'...if it meant taking out Saddam before the I-Rak War started and thus saving almost 2k American lives in the process...figure that one out there, B-Fly? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually it's more like 8000 dead US soldiers according to the latest memos circulating around in the Pentagon So I guess it would have been better to call for Bush assassination to prevent those official "2000" dead US soldiers and the 100,000 dead Iraqis See, I told you, Bush is not going to heaven despite calling himself a "born again" Christian <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There you go again with you erronious, appeasier, defeatist figures, B-Fly. Check again...it's <2k Combat deaths. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" Looks like Vietnam was small game compared to Iraq Iraq is well ahead http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/10/20/us-death...-iraq-by-month/
August 28, 200520 yr Well, tell y'all somethin'...if it meant taking out Saddam before the I-Rak War started and thus saving almost 2k American lives in the process...figure that one out there, B-Fly? . Also, every country has a different view about what could constitute the validation of the assassinating of a national leader and almost assuredly the leader of the US would be seen as a valid target by some countries...argueing that assassination of national leaders should be accepted as appropriate as an element of foreign policy is equivalent to putting virtually every national leader into the assassin's crosshairs . It's already occured - recall Castro 'taking out' JFK? Are you saying it is a legitimate action for any nation to target the leaders of other countries for assassination? Ah...good 'ol "put-words-in-their-mouths" Stroll - not so fast, buddy! I'm saying it would have been a lot cheaper and less costly in humanitarian terms to have taken out Saddam than to have fought this war.
August 28, 200520 yr Author Well, tell y'all somethin'...if it meant taking out Saddam before the I-Rak War started and thus saving almost 2k American lives in the process...figure that one out there, B-Fly? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> . Also, every country has a different view about what could constitute the validation of the assassinating of a national leader and almost assuredly the leader of the US would be seen as a valid target by some countries...argueing that assassination of national leaders should be accepted as appropriate as an element of foreign policy is equivalent to putting virtually every national leader into the assassin's crosshairs . <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's already occured - recall Castro 'taking out' JFK? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you saying it is a legitimate action for any nation to target the leaders of other countries for assassination? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah...good 'ol "put-words-in-their-mouths" Stroll - not so fast, buddy! I'm saying it would have been a lot cheaper and less costly in humanitarian terms to have taken out Saddam than to have fought this war. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If I remember correctly, the purpose of the war was to search WMDs, not regime change No matter what diplomatic solutions were out there, the US wanted to invade, with or without Saddam. How do you think they were going to take all that oil ? teletransportation
August 28, 200520 yr . How do you think they were going to take all that oil ? teletransportation <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The old fashion way...like this.
August 28, 200520 yr *edit... nevermind.... upon further consideration... I'll avoid this meaningless discussion for now...
August 28, 200520 yr The Human Cost of Freedom On the Huffington Post, Cindy Sheehan announces her return to Crawford, Texas to the anti-war vigil she holds to protest her son's "meaningless death" in a "senseless war." She still cannot understand what noble cause her son sacrificed his life for. She laments: "...every death is now a meaningless one. And the vast majority of our country knows this. So why do more young men and women have to die? And why do more parents have to lose their children and live the rest of their lives with this unbearable grief?" It can be answered in one word: Freedom
August 28, 200520 yr It's already occured - recall Castro 'taking out' JFK? Yes, thats one plausible theory thrown out to keep em' guessing although ultimately incorrect. If I remember correctly, the purpose of the war was to search WMDs, not regime change Yes, you're right. That was the cover story.
August 28, 200520 yr CIA, Military Men Agree with Pat Robertson Newsmax | August 26 2005 While televangelist Pat Robertson has apologized for suggesting that Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez be assassinated, a former military man and an ex-CIA operative have stepped forward to say that his concerns about Chavez aren't exactly unwarranted. "Chavez is a dangerous guy," retired Col. David Hunt told Bill Bennett's "Morning in America" fill-in host Steve Malzberg on Wednesday. "We helped to elect the son of a gun [and] after 9/11 you don't get to threaten us." The issue of assassination "should be on the table," Hunt said. "I'm suggesting that we use it as a tool . . . to get those guys nervous." Former CIA operative Wayne Simmons agreed, telling Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes," that Chavez has "threatened not only the United States and the west, but [has]armed himself with the revolutionary armed forces of Colombia, which is the oldest, most well-trained terrorist organization in Latin America." "He should have been killed a long time ago," Simmons said
August 28, 200520 yr This just makes smirk. I laugh at the people complaining about how high fuel prices are. Most of these people complaining are probably driving around these huge SUV's! They deserve it IMO. Nobody forced them into buying such a monstrosity. Gas Station Workers Face Angry Customers Associated Press | August 26, 2005 By SHEILA FLYNN It's a scene gas station workers say is becoming increasingly common and frightening: Customers angry over gas prices nearing $3 a gallon storm in and decide to take it out on the employees. "They just yell and scream," said Selam Berhe, assistant manager at a Dallas Tetco station. "They think it's only us that are high-priced." Incidents of consumer anger and gas-station crime have made headlines across the country, including the killing of a gas station owner in Alabama last week by a driver attempting to steal $52 worth of gas. Alvin Benefield, 42, surrendered Thursday and was being held on theft and manslaughter charges in the death of Husain "Tony" Caddi, police said. Berhe recalled the particularly belligerent behavior of a man who ranted about the prices to everyone in the station. "He walked in the store and said, 'Do you work here? This is ridiculous,'" Berhe said. "He was telling each and every customer. I was like, I don't make the prices." Gas prices are about $2.56 in Texas, up from $1.80 at the same time last year. Bruce Hutton, professor of marketing at the University of Denver, said the high prices could spark even more angst than the frustrating long lines during the 1970s energy crisis because the current situation is far less clear-cut. The 1970s crisis sparked from obvious oil shortages. But today, despite growing inventories, numerous factors are combining to drive up prices _ refinery problems, growing demand from China and energy traders worried over capacity tightness. Hutton, who has done extensive research on consumer decision-making and energy usage information, said there's also a sense of entitlement among consumers today. "In some respects, that makes it a whole lot more anxious or anxiety- producing," he said. Rae Dougher, manager of energy market issues at the Washington-based American Petroleum Institute, said outbursts directed at employees are common. "The higher the prices, I think, the more frustrated and angry consumers are becoming," Dougher said. "I think that they always suffer from consumers' wrath." She noted that, although gas prices are soaring, gas station owners are often suffering squeezed profits or even losing money _ and they still have to deal with irritated customers who blame them for high costs. "I think it's hard on a lot of the retail owners and workers to do business," Dougher said. Bobby Poudel, who works at a Dallas Citgo station, said business has been undeniably less pleasant since prices started skyrocketing in June. "A lot of people show their anger to me," said Poudel, 26. "Sometimes I've got to say, 'That's not me!'" Berhe said she's looking forward to lower prices, but in the meantime people at the gas station say they'll just have to put up with some abuse. "We just need to smile," said clerk Elizabeth Garza. "If someone tells you something, you have to smile and say, `Have a nice day.'"
August 29, 200520 yr Well, tell y'all somethin'...if it meant taking out Saddam before the I-Rak War started and thus saving almost 2k American lives in the process...figure that one out there, B-Fly? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> . Also, every country has a different view about what could constitute the validation of the assassinating of a national leader and almost assuredly the leader of the US would be seen as a valid target by some countries...argueing that assassination of national leaders should be accepted as appropriate as an element of foreign policy is equivalent to putting virtually every national leader into the assassin's crosshairs . <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's already occured - recall Castro 'taking out' JFK? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you saying it is a legitimate action for any nation to target the leaders of other countries for assassination? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah...good 'ol "put-words-in-their-mouths" Stroll - not so fast, buddy! I'm saying it would have been a lot cheaper and less costly in humanitarian terms to have taken out Saddam than to have fought this war. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It sounds to me like you were advocating assassination of foreign leaders...I'd like to clear up this misunderstanding...do you think it is a legitimate action for any nation to target the leaders of other countries for assassination?
August 29, 200520 yr Author If those SUV owners are so frustrated why don't they take their frustations to Washington ? They want to blame someone ? go blame the Texan Oil man they elected into the White House. Duh !!!! they are probably just cowards. Well deserved.
August 29, 200520 yr CIA, Military Men Agree with Pat RobertsonNewsmax | August 26 2005 While televangelist Pat Robertson has apologized for suggesting that Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez be assassinated, a former military man and an ex-CIA operative have stepped forward to say that his concerns about Chavez aren't exactly unwarranted. "Chavez is a dangerous guy," retired Col. David Hunt told Bill Bennett's "Morning in America" fill-in host Steve Malzberg on Wednesday. "We helped to elect the son of a gun [and] after 9/11 you don't get to threaten us." The issue of assassination "should be on the table," Hunt said. "I'm suggesting that we use it as a tool . . . to get those guys nervous." Former CIA operative Wayne Simmons agreed, telling Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes," that Chavez has "threatened not only the United States and the west, but [has]armed himself with the revolutionary armed forces of Colombia, which is the oldest, most well-trained terrorist organization in Latin America." "He should have been killed a long time ago," Simmons said <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Because the US still has a great degree of freedom, former CIA operatives are free to give their personal opinions publicly...but do not think that they represent anyone other than themselves.
August 29, 200520 yr Author The Human Cost of FreedomOn the Huffington Post, Cindy Sheehan announces her return to Crawford, Texas to the anti-war vigil she holds to protest her son's "meaningless death" in a "senseless war." She still cannot understand what noble cause her son sacrificed his life for. She laments: "...every death is now a meaningless one. And the vast majority of our country knows this. So why do more young men and women have to die? And why do more parents have to lose their children and live the rest of their lives with this unbearable grief?" It can be answered in one word: Freedom <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But Boon Me, you hate Freedom so why would you defend it or even promote it ? "There are some who, uh, feel like that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is: Bring 'em on. We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation. “ - George W. Bush, July 2, 2003. 8,000 dead US soldeirs and still counting
August 29, 200520 yr The Human Cost of FreedomOn the Huffington Post, Cindy Sheehan announces her return to Crawford, Texas to the anti-war vigil she holds to protest her son's "meaningless death" in a "senseless war." She still cannot understand what noble cause her son sacrificed his life for. She laments: "...every death is now a meaningless one. And the vast majority of our country knows this. So why do more young men and women have to die? And why do more parents have to lose their children and live the rest of their lives with this unbearable grief?" It can be answered in one word: Freedom 8,000 dead US soldeirs and still counting Source? Good 'ol "If-The-Facts-Don't-Fit,-Make-'em-Up" Butterfly!
August 29, 200520 yr Off-Topic again but since it's the OP who started exploring this subject, here's a bit more: Putting The Loss On Iraqi Civilians Into Perspective "Yes, a brutal insurgency continues to threaten the Iraqi people, an insurgency which has killed some 25,000 Iraqi civilians since April of 2003. But Saddam Hussein, even by conservative estimates, butchered 1.5 million Iraqis during his 25 years in power (not counting the one million who died in the war he started with Iran). So Saddam and his goons killed an average of 60,000 people a year, while the insurgency has killed 25,000 in two and a half years. Despite the hand-wringing over the insurgency, the devil's arithmetic would indicate that life for the average Iraq is actually safer today than it was under Saddam." -- Jim Forsyth
Create an account or sign in to comment