The politics of assassination

quote:

---

According to NewsMax, apparently assassination of foreign leaders isn't so out of the question in the minds of some political thinkers, including military men and George Stephanopoulos (in 1997 concerning Saddam)....

---

If it makes you feel any better, Faith, I wouldn't lose much sleep if Pat Robertson and George Stephanopoulos were marooned on the same island.

quote:

---

Not for any American President unless we manage to elect a true Hitler....

---

So, if Chavez is not a "true Hitler", may we conclude that Robertson's remarks were very much uncalled for?

Hello, Faith.I am aware of what you wrote; sorry if it sounded as if I were accusing you of something. I am interested, though, in those people who think that assassination should be a legitimate tool of state craft, and so think that sometimes comments like Robertson's are called for. What criteria does on decide when an assassination is warranted? What if those conditions may apply to a US president? Who gets to decide whether a Venezuelan president or a US president is to be assassinated?What people who are quick to legitimize things like assassination don't seem to realize is that this is the sort of thing that will come right back to haunt us.

He's using the profits from his country's natural resources to improve the lives of the poorer people in his country, rather than distributing them to the upper classes and the international corporations.He's also setting a bad example for other countries, which may also decide to use their natural resources for the benefit of their people rather than enriching the international corporations.The man is clearly dangerous. If I were a capitalist, I would be worried.

*Ahem* The politics of assassination.

quote:

---

He began to believe, that though Deism might be true, it was not very useful (typical Franklinian pragmatism). He decided that such ideas might pervert weak-minded people.

---

If one looks at the total of statements about religion made by the founding fathers, one can get the impression that the founding fathers did not exactly believe in Christianity, but felt that relgious doctrines might be useful in keeping the masses in line. (Ooh, did someone say, "Discovery Institute -- wedge document?"

quote:

---

I would carry arms (again) for my country or its allies to repel an invasion.

---

This is interesting. I can see why one choose to carry arms for one's country to repel an invasion but not for any other nation (I myself would limit it to an invasion of the region in which I am living); I fail to see, however, the distinction between an ally of your country and other countries. Why, for example, would you choose to carry arms to repel an invasion of Kuwait but not for Venezuala? Just curious, don't you know.

quote:

---

I would resort to violence only to oppose it. I recognize the paradox....

---

Oh, I don't know whether I'd call it a paradox. Although I respect pacifists, I am not a pacifist myself. I, too, feel that at times violence must be opposed with violence, and outright invasion is one of those times.