In my opinion, we should have taken out these wastes of human flesh while we had them in plain view where they couldn't hide or run. They are both evil in the purest sense of the word. We should have killed them before they attempt to kill all of us. We should have hired two Italian hit-men to do the job and deny any connection to the incident. Or maybe we should have placed two sharp shooters in the balcony of the UN assembly if there is a balcony and let them shoot them both in the forehead before they uttered so much as a word. We could have taken two meaningless lives, and perhaps we would have saved millions of meaningful, innocent lives in the process. What happened to the America that I thought we were, the America that had a pair of balls and wasn't afraid to act like it? Our media, the Democrats, and the leftist "educated" idiots make me ashamed to call myself an American. With every breath, they defacate on what our forefathers worked, fought, and died to achieve.
2006-09-20 16:20:27 · 12 answers · asked by McReynolds 3 in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
In reality, it either already is, or will come down to it being us or them. I for one will do anything humanly possible to aid in defeating these despicable enemies of our nation. I am enough of a realist to understand that these maniacal fascists want to destroy my country and my family. They want to kill us all, and more people should realize that they are not even rational, muchless peaceful.
2006-09-20 16:23:51 · update #1
OK, well when they try to invade our country or kill us in another way, you idiots can die in my family's stead since you are too moral to kill people who want to kill you. Grow a backbone you gutless worms, these people want to kill you and everyone who doesn't agree with them. Why not get them before they get us? You people disgust me.
2006-09-20 16:33:03 · update #2
You can be dead, morally sound liberals, but I would rather be a living conservative who helped assassinate a dictator and an Islamic Nazi. Really, I could live with it. If asked to perform the task by our President I would carry out my duty and then go eat lunch afterwards with no guilt at all. Like I said, we need to get them before they get us. Also, to the traitor who said that we should assassinate OUR Vice President, OUR President, and Condi Rice, you should be lined in front of a firing squad for treason.
2006-09-20 16:38:51 · update #3
English queer, You really have a warped sense of what's really going on don't you? You obviously don't have a clue. You need an Irish-American to kick your a-r-s-e, or even better a home grown Irishman.
2006-09-21 10:19:52 · update #4
Map, it may seem irrational to someone who obviously has a lack of testicular fortitude and more than likely has no family to be concerned about if these maniacs attack our homeland.
2006-09-21 10:22:35 · update #5
One shot - one kill.
2006-09-20 17:51:50 · answer #1 · answered by Mav 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, your offering is a seemingly elegant solution, simple in approach and, if you will pardon the use of the word in this particular instance, execution. Further, one might argue quite soundly that Nixon's support of the assassination of Allende in Chile years ago was precisely the right thing to do. It saved many lives that a military interdiction certainly would have cost to thwart the introduction of a communist foothold in South America.
Still, as much as I agree with the necessity of removing folks like these from power, assassination as a general policy has some significant shortcomings. One might point to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand for example, which started WWI and cost millions of lives as a prime example. German theorist Von Clauswitz (not sure about the spelling there) once remarked about what he called "the fog of war" which he basically explained as the unforeseen consequences of otherwise well-planned actions, and while assassination as a policy is not exactly war, it is certainly an act of war, and can produce unforeseen consequences.
Even after Napoleon was defeated and first exiled to Elba, and later to St. Helena, the rulers of the states who defeated him did not have him assassinated (although some evidence suggests he may have been slowly poisoned on St. Helena). They rightly assumed that states that engage in regicide sent a signal at home and abroad that killing off leaders of countries is an acceptable practice--a precedent that very few leaders are interested in establishing for understandable reasons.
Cumbersome as it it. Expensive as it is. The economic sanctions, and even the sometimes necessary military option are sounder approaches in general as a world in which rampant assassinations abound is too chaotic a state to reasonably contemplate.
I completely sympathize with your disdain for these two vermin, but measured responses behoove the most powerful nation in the world. After all, when you are on the top of the heap, the status quo is your friend. Radical solutions are what your opponents must resort to, as they wish to undo the status quo.
They have little to lose, and so are more willing to take risky solutions to problems. We, on the other hand, have a great deal to lose, but being in that position we are not obliged to take wild risks.
2006-09-20 23:48:02 · answer #2 · answered by anonymourati 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, clearly our forefathers intended for Americans to assassinate people who disagree with us. It says so in the Constitution.
Yeah, you'd never be an Islamic Nazi...being a Christian Nazi (as if there's any other Nazi) is just fine by you.
2006-09-20 23:28:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
If anyone needs a bullet through the brain it's the Presichimp and the evil cabal behind him. It would save thousands of innocent lives.
2006-09-21 02:33:32 · answer #4 · answered by That English Dude 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Probably.
You have been having your mind controlled by the US press and TV haven't you. You are so far away from reality, you need some assistance.
Listen to the two tapes below for some serious revelations
2006-09-21 01:52:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't think anyone has the right to murder another human being. Remember that the people you want to murder have thousands who support them so murder is not going to be a solution.
2006-09-21 00:07:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are really angry arent you? Why not take that energy and serve your country in Iraq since you are such a great American defender unless it is all from the mouth out.
2006-09-21 01:06:33 · answer #7 · answered by diaryofamadblackman 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
YEs
2006-09-21 01:27:30 · answer #8 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hm, possibly. We shouldn't have even let them into our country.
2006-09-20 23:23:10 · answer #9 · answered by Christine H. 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ahmadinejad could have been targeted recently in wartime, which elevates it from assassination.
I can't condone assassination.
2006-09-20 23:28:32 · answer #10 · answered by Makemeaspark 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋