The politics of assassination

Assissination is something the US does, imo, but not to heads of state for fear of retaliation against the president, whoever it is.Pat's mistake though is more that he said this on-air. It was inflammatory, not helpful, and just not something with his caliber of influence should state openly.Plus, it's probably not right. Chavez was elected, and we have a bad track record in Latin America so it's not that likely that the people we would back to replace him would be that much better.Best to stay out of it, unless there is a definite threat of spreading armed communist rebels in other nations.If we want to do some good killing a head of state, we should take out Castro, not Chavez.This message has been edited by randman, 08-25-2005 07:37 PM

Ditto to Faith's point on Robertson not being a corrupt TV ministry.The fact is the Left preaches big about separation of Church and State, and not judging religion by politics, but then demonizes a man for his political position.If you disagree with Robertson's politics, fine. That doesn't make him a bad man, nor that he is even wrong.I think he sometimes shows a penchant for putting his foot in his mouth, but at the same time I wonder how many posters would not do the same with that sort of public TV exposure.

Total unsubstantaited horse manure.Lemme ask you something. Is Jimmy Carter a good man or the types of things you say about Robertson?Both men are politically active, but it seems the one from your side of the fence is a good man in the Left's eyes, but a conservative is going to hell, eh?I think most Americans can see through such false accusations.

Let me ask you a moral question. Answer and you have done more than just point the finger. Shrink from it, and you are shown to be a hypocrite.Would it have been right to assissinate Hitler to protect the Jews? For sake of discussion, assume you knew that Hitler was going to kill millions of people or was in fact beginning to round them up and do so.That's the main question, but a secondary question is:Would Jesus have shot Hitler?I admit I hold a sort of paradoxical position, or maybe one that is morally inconsistent. It strikes me it would have been morally right to kill Hitler to save the Jews and other victims from the death camps.On the other hand, it seems to me that this is not something Jesus would do.Now, putting aside whether Chavez is the bad guy Robertson thinks he is. (I addressed this already in another post). If he believes he is an oppressor and murderer of people and a threat to the region, and let's just say he was as bad as Hitler or Stalin, our ally, for sake of argument, would it be right to kill him to save lives or not?Why don't you tell us what you think the moral decision would be, and the Christian one?Keep in mind that I already stated I disagreed with Robertson's views here and think he is wrong. I just am not willing to judge him as evil or something for holding differing political views.I also think, as Christians, there is some ambiguity as when violence is ever acceptable. I think a cop shooting a rapist attacking a woman is acceptable, for example, and believe state's have a right to use violence for justice.Some others like pacifist Christians would disagree.This message has been edited by randman, 08-25-2005 10:31 PM

Those are bogus statistics. The vast majority of American aid comes from private sources, not the government. So using government aid stats is misleading and wrong.

Excuse me if I feel like vomiting. Unbeleivable.

And that's a good thing since we don't want the government getting so involved it screws things up.Of course, the government does offer tax deductions. So they do a little.