Posted on 08/25/2005 5:40:10 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
-----------------------------------
That thinking is as dangerous as it is historically flawed. In terms of who did the truly heavy lifting against Hitler the commie Soviets come in first by a mile.
If a jihadist gets lucky and takes out Bush he will claim that God endorsed it and just used him to achieve His goals. You would have to agree if you really believe what you wrote.
What more can you expect from a man who agreed with a statement that "it was the pornographers and homosexuals fault for 9/11" shortly after? The man's a nutcase.
I'm just glad he doesn't represent my Church.
What a lot of people don't realize is that Christ is the god of the OT, the God of Israel, the great I AM. Christ was every bit as merciful during his ministry on Earth as he was to ancient Israel. I don't see the OT as fire and brimstone and the NT as peaceful and merciful.
Paul's comments about supporting and upholding your govt. were directed towards a specific group of people at a specific point in time. When a govt. fails to uphold the natural rights of its citizens, it's the peoples' right and duty to overthrow that government.
In addition, it is the right of all men to defend themselves. Chavez is a Castro wannabe and I wouldn't shed a tear of Chavez was taken out.
What approach? Kennedy confronted Khrushchev over the missiles equipped with nuclear weapons the Soviets placed in Cuba. We blockaded Cuba and placed our troops on high alert throughout the world. The Soviets blinked and withdrew the missiles from that country. Firm and forceful action worked against the Communists then, just as our irresolute action in 1961 resulted in the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion. The Kennedy brothers learned the lesson of weakness and equivocation in 1961, and acted firmly the next year against Khrushchev.
That is like saying we shouldn't throw rapists in jail because we wouldn't like it if the rapist threw us in jail.
Do you believe it would have been wrong to take Hitler out before WW2 began? Would your objection look something like: "We wouldn't have liked it if Germany took out Roosevelt before the war so how could we justify taking out the leader of Germany?"
the article title is blasphemous.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1514
http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,12716,1419780,00.html
A couple of stories on the subject. Perhaps Chavez was making it up, but if Bush wasnt plotting he should have been , and he should have carried it out.
>>>>Do you believe it would have been wrong to take Hitler out before WW2 began?
Given 20/20 hindsight and a time machine, sure, whack the bum. The problem is, we have no time machine to predict who other US Presidents would choose to take out in future administrations. The US remains a civilized nation because we limit the absolute power of our rulers. How does President Dean with an assassination squad sound to you? Laughable? That's what the average German would have said in 1931 if you asked him what he thought about the probability of Chancellor Hitler.
Yes, Chavez was making it up, and, no, Bush should not have carried it out.
That about sums it up. Were it not for undeserved kindness, none of us would be here.
I take it you were opposed to Reagan's attempted "whacking" of Qaddafi?
There has been an alliance between the international Left, including the remnants of Communism, and radical Islam, at least since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even our domestic anti-Iraq War protests resemble those staged by leftists against the Vietnam War, with some of the same players, such as Joan Baez and Jane Fonda, crawling out of the woodwork to join the protests. The fact that Chavez is friendly to both Communist tyrants like Castro and the ayatollahs of Iran is clear evidence of this alliance.
The Marxist-radical Muslim alliance has gone unnoticed by the MSM and even by most conservatives. Robertson has performed a valuable service by highlighting the danger in our "near abroad" from this Castro wannabe.
What you are saying is that: Since we have very screwed-up and evil people like moveon.org who are a threat to get into power, we cannot do something good using good judgment of good and evil, because a leftist moveon.org type group may get into power one day and use bad judgment and do something evil.
This only points out why it is so necessary to empasize how important the righteous character of our leaders has always been. It is not just the economy, an evil pervert could inherit a good economy.
The Bible teaches us what is important in the leaders we elect.
Our leaders must be righteous men, able men. That is, they have to be righteous men who have great ability also. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean etc. miss the mark by a mile.
I was young at the time but I don't remember a lot of outrage over Reagan's attempted Qaddafi whacking back then, certainly none by conservatives.
With all of the apparent conservatives who are outraged by Robertson's comments, I guess Reagan couldn't carry out such an attack today or his own party would be trying to impeach him.
At the time of the Cuban missile crisis, the Communists had been entrenched in the Soviet Union for over 40 years. Domestic opposition, including post-World War II guerrilla warfare in the Baltic States and Ukraine, had been ruthlessly crushed well before 1962. Millions of regime opponents were killed in the Gulag under Lenin and Stalin. Those Russians and others who had fled Communism were in no position to take power over such a vast nation from their exile in places like Paris or New York. The Soviet Union was far more powerful than Cuba, and Communist rule was not dependent upon the charisma of one man. Assassinating Khrushchev would have only resulted in another Communist taking power, just as the assassination of Kennedy (or for that matter Lincoln, McKinley, or Garfield) did not cause our government to collapse.
Assassination is a tool that would have worked against the Cuban regime, but not against the Soviet dictatorship. I doubt anyone in a position of responsibility in the 1960s considered assassinating Khrushchev.
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.