Posted on 03/27/2011 9:29:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Now this has negative consequences no matter what we do.
Thirty five years ago it would be just some raghead that fell off his camel and broke his neck.
Your argument in #15 sounds nice, but it may be obsolete.
As you know, modern warfare has slipped from historical black and white to near gangsta criminal activity: undeclared warfare conducted by armed civilians. The times have changed and the old rules of civility may no longer apply if a people are to survive.
If it was acceptable for snipers to take out young privates on the battlefield, then it was equally acceptable to likewise take out the private’s CinC.
If continuing acts of deadly aggression can be credibly linked to a particular head of governement, why shouldn't a similar rule adapted to realities on the ground prevail today?
I love Bolton... always have. He’s an extremely competent, “say it like it is” ballsy guy. However, some things are best left unsaid.
That is not to say that if I were King, that certain “leaders” around the world wouldn’t be neutralized.
we cannot rescue the world
and mark my words..all over the Arab world we will end up with worse than before
the left is fairly quiet on this but they howled over Iraq which was also to remove a despot
Let not your heart be troubled—The Brits or the French will do it for us—that or his own people.... What ever comes after the mad man will be an improvement. Even in Ben Laden himself ran the country it would be better—and I don’t think that will happen.
The news crews find him easily enough. All we need is a special forces news crew to get him laser designated for a surgical strike with minimal collateral damage...
It should be his own people.
Actually, a ME run by AQ would simplify things. We could indiscriminately bomb any city, in any of those countries, and be assured we were killing the right people.
Candidate? For what, and since when? First I've heard of it.
This kind of thing is better left to the private sector.
RE: This kind of thing is better left to the private sector
Can you name one company that’s willing to do it? And what’s the price for doing the job and who pays for it?
Well, if you begin with the premise that no one wants to off the guy, then maybe it’s a bad idea.
I don’t see Qadaffy as an islamist but as a narcissist willing to use islam to stay in power. Bolton is right though. Daffy deserves death for his involvement with the Pan Am bombing. We just need to make sure the Brotherhood and al Qaeda doesn’t move in afterwards.
So Big Ears has a plan for that?
Temple Owl wrote:
“I wouild shed no tears for Robert Mugabe,Kim Jong IL,Hosni Mubarak, Raul Castro Mahmoud Amandinedad, Muammar Al-Quaddafi or Hugo Chavez if they were done in. I’d probably go to sleep with a smile on my face.”
And millions of muslims go to sleep with a smile on their face thinking of 9/11 because they think we’re “The Great Satan.” Kill or be killed is the law of the jungle and beasts, not of mankind. I ask of you what I have asked before; if this is acceptable, why don’t we just kill all the convicted murderers on death row and all those known terrorists at Gitmo right now? It would save us loads of money and they wouldn’t be able to threaten anyone again.
If we assassinate Qadafi, it certainly won’t be because he has threatened America or his own citizens. We have allowed that for years, just as we have in other countries. Otherwise, we would have already done away with Amadidijad, Castro, and others already. If we assassinate Qadafi, it will be because he is a threat to France’s oil supply and we owe them a favor. We are witnessing the International Mafia at work. Not until we end up on the receiving end of their “business tactics” will America wake up and then it will be too late.
You makie good points. In retropect, would you have had Hitler assassinated?
frog in a pot wrote:
Assassinate, no.
“Your argument in #15 sounds nice, but it may be obsolete.
As you know, modern warfare has slipped from historical black and white to near gangsta criminal activity: undeclared warfare conducted by armed civilians. The times have changed and the old rules of civility may no longer apply if a people are to survive.”
We have supposedly attacked Qadafi for “humanitarian” reasons because he has threatened his own citizens. Consider this: A Libyan General took command of a group of Qadafi loyalists and was ordered to quell the rebellion. They found a cache of rebel weapons in a small town. First, the town was stripped of everything considered valuable. Nine citizens were given a farcial trial and executed. Quadafi forces then burned the entire town to the ground.
Qadafi’s forces then began attacking soft targets, factories and food production sites. Qadafi declared that there would be no peace until everyone sympathetic to the uprising was destroyed. Every dwelling they came across was first stripped of its property then burned, leaving women, children and the elderly without food or shelter. All factory workers were ordered to be gathered up and shipped to locations making goods for Qadafi’s army. Children were separated from their mothers, never to see them again. Qadafi managed to quell the rebellion by decimating a large part of the Libyan population with his brutal assault against them. The suffering endured by women, children, the sick and elderly that were left without food, shelter or a means of living was monumental.
So, is the above enough to justify the assassination of the tyrant that ordered it? Does such treatment of one’s own countrymen to quell a rebellion merit death?
Please read my reply to “Frog in a Pot” and tell me what you think. I will answer further.
No, I would not have had Hitler assassinated, or anyone else. Had Hitler not carried out his own death sentence as he did; he should have been brought to trial before the nations he had committed atrocities against and executed by them after his conviction.
Once again you make a good argument, within the context of the facts you present.
Certainly Qadafi has the right to employ whatever means are necessary to protect his nation’s government. Arguably, other nations should not be involved in judging those means. Here, of course, we think of the U.S.’s war between the states; the intentional and wide-spread destruction and pillaging of private property and the brutal treatment and murder of southern civilians.
On the other hand, in the face of credible evidence that Qadafi was responsible for the deaths of many Americans in several bombings, and there was such evidence, then our government had an obligation to exact justice. The families of the killed Americans could have been privately and fully briefed by the highest levels of our government, and other leaders who might be similarly inclined could be provided with details sufficient to persuade them from future similar action.
Sending high-tech ordnance through his tent, while not very subtle, certainly captured the attention of other leaders. It was also an exercise that depended in a large measure on luck. Unless it was deemed in our national interest to leave him in power, we could have done better at less cost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.