Assassinating terrorists OK?

Putin. It came out not too long after the military operation was complete if I remember right.

Of course, folks with liberal blinders on didn't think that was front page news like Abu Ghraib or "evidence" that Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11.

 

OK Daisy, I give up. You're right.

Saddam was completely benign. His allowing terrorist training camps in Iraq was made up by the CIA. Saddam never desired revenge on the US. He never intended to sponsor or support terrorism against us. He wasn't manipulating the inspectors to keep them away from his secrets. Bush and other leaders didn't actually have more info on him than you do... they just made stuff up. The armies of people in intelligence whose business is to profile foreign leaders lied to both Clinton (who established regime change in Iraq as a matter of official policy) and Bush.

In short, Saddam was a victim. We picked on him and made up lies about him. He was an honest, truthful guy who we just decided to beat up on for no good reason.

You are so right. We're evil and Saddam is just misunderstood.

 

The Clinton "regime change policy" came about by the insistance of the PNAC founders. You know the same ones who said Saddam was just the immediate justification for a wider conflict in the middle east.

 

What is "PNAC"?

 

Project For The New American Century. Click Here

 

Ah, thankyou. PNAC fits in well with my philosophy.

 

Corporatist then eh? I believe in individual liberty and a constitutional government myself. Mussolini and Machiavelli have their appeal too I guess, mostly to rich corporatist PNACers and their followers.

 

Well, I'm certainly not rich; can't hardly keep up with my medical bills

 

Don't have to be rich to be corporatist. All you have to do is share their philosophy. Hard not to with the amount of disinfo and propaganda they pump out through their think tanks and corporate media these days.

 

Did anyone catch this:

"Negroponte told the panel that some 40 terror groups, insurgencies or cults have obtained or want chemical, biological or nuclear weapons."

Source: http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20060202/D8FH66H03.html?PG=home&SEC=news

I suppose this guy is just paranoid too, huh? Or maybe he is another player in Poncho's international conspiracy theory...

FTR, Saddam might have been the source of some of these weapons or perhaps not. What we now know for sure is that he will not be a future source. Good riddance- THREAT REDUCED.

 

While I agree that the UN needs to be abolished, that in no way diminishes the fact that we are a member nation. And as such, the UN resolution calling for us to invade the moment Hussein kicked out the inspectors gave us all the authorization we needed.

But, with all the kickbacks that were being taken by those in charge of the UN, it's no wonder they were vocally opposed to actually enforcing such.

France, Germany, and Russia all had illegal financial dealings going on there, Anan (sp?) got billions from the oil for food scam, and the list goes on and on.

 

That's not what I mean at all. I don't trust our government to actually ensure that assassination targets are truly terrorists. In our supposed mission to protect American soldiers' lives we've recently shown ourselves to be unconcerned with the lives of foreign civilians.

 

I don't understand, what would he have to be paranoid about, having the truth come out about Battalion 316? Too late. Click Here. And Here.

I'm sure he knew the plan was to balkanize Iraq and demonize Iran when he took the job of director of intelligence.

Scott, I am truely amazed that anyone that can read or is still breathing isn't convinced of the international conspiracy. It's right in your face, why you can't see it is beyond my powers of comprehension. They don't even bother to hide it anymore, now they have big parties in Davos and plan our future slavery right out in the open.

Do you know what Agenda 21 is?

Do you know what sustainable development is?

Do you know who funds the enviromentalists, I believe some call them "treehuggers or treelovers?

Ever heard of the Rio Earth Summit?

Do you know what the New Urbanism is?

Ever read the UN charter?

Ever read the the UN Earth charter?

Do you even know what the sustainable philosophy is?

If you answered no to any of these questions then as a patriotic freedom loving American or freedom lover from anyplace on the planet you should...

Check it out for yourself. Click Here.

 

I'll leave you the last five pages FTR. Justa cuz I like ya! Hey, fagitabotit!

 

Scott, substituting sarcasm and strawmen for actual evidence is so totally lame that is not worth refuting. It must be frustrating for you to have nothing of substance to offer.

Mischaracterising my position is dishonest; doing it repeatedly indicates that it is deliberate.

If you want to discuss issues like a reasonnable adult, I'm game, but if you simply want to employ hate-radio type tactics, find someone else to practise on.

 

No such resolution passed. The UN specifically rejected invading Iraq (France & Germany of the Security Council vetoed it and China would not support it). There was one resolution which called for "severe measures" but what that meant was not spelled out. At the time of the invasion, the inspectors had been let back in.

Were you following international news back in 2002-03? Did you read any of the resolutions?

Anyway, what about assassinating terrorists? If our leaders should engage or sponsor terrorism, should they be assassinated? If so, by whom? Hypothetical.

 

I recommend contracting it out to Mossad. Our people could use some true expertise in this area.

 

No apology necessary - I'm always losing track of threads or getting distracted by other matters.

Freedom fries? Surrender monkeys? It was so childish, but I imagine it was great fun (and a distraction from the actual issues surrounding that debate).

His adolescent shennanigans show him to be a petulant, flawed human being - it deglorifies him, which is a good thing. It also puts the Coalition (not to belittle the UK & Oz) in a good light - that we practice as well as preach the rule of law.

I consider the arrest and trial of Saddam to be one of the biggest successes of Bush's administration.

It's an ill wind that blows no good (I love cliches). Assassinations are not without their upsides - including a biggie - far less collateral damage.

Not so much at America as at their neighboring rival states. If we justify assassination to right a wrong against us, why shouldn't the podunks againt them?

Um, are you equating assassinating a head of state with thumbing one's nose? I think we have some confusion of terms here.