I seemed to have read it in a Dan Brown book but will have to look it up again.

 

I read it in a Louis L'Amour book, I believe.

 

The Walking Drum

Because I feel that the most important thing for any country is to protect themselves and do whatever is necessary to ensure success. If that means you have to eliminate certain people who may possess a threat to you, then so be it.

 

Almost always reverts back to Darwinism with me...Survival of the Fittest.

 

Does that include US citizens on US soil?

I'm not sure I want anyone in Washington making the call on assassination's of any US citizen. I just believe there are too many affiliations and emotions involved in USA politics. I know it's hypocritical but if someone is a credible threat to our national security outside of our country, I could live with it.

I'm not sure I want anyone in Washington making the call on assassination's of any US citizen. I just believe there are too many affiliations and emotions involved in USA politics. I know it's hypocritical but if someone is a credible threat to our national security outside of our country, I could live with it.

 

Most agree that the way we rationalize killing a person is if they are viewed as a threat to the country. Why does the nationality of the threat determine whether it's OK?

Most agree that the way we rationalize killing a person is if they are viewed as a threat to the country. Why does the nationality of the threat determine whether it's OK?

 

I believe there would be less emotion involved in the assassination of a threat from outside our country. I'm afraid that party affiliations would dictate who lives and who dies.

I believe there would be less emotion involved in the assassination of a threat from outside our country. I'm afraid that party affiliations would dictate who lives and who dies.

 

So you think Congress always knows about who the CIA is taking out?

So you think Congress always knows about who the CIA is taking out?

 

I'm saying that I don't trust the people in the CIA that are making the decisions. I'm probably totally wrong but.....

Does that include US citizens on US soil?

 

To me, it's all inclusive.

I believe that a few well placed bullets, or the threat thereof, would preclude alot of the issues that are going on in todays world. I also am a fan of capital punishment being used as a deterrent to crime. The old eye for an eye....

It's not something we like to talk about, but the CIA and some other special groups have performed necessary preemptive strikes that have saved many lives. It's not pretty and it's not nice, but at times it's been necessary. Defense of a nation is not easy.

 

I always wonder how people's opinions would be changed, if they had all the info available to them and knew how violent and cruel sectors of the world are.

I'm reading a book that includes the CIA and assassinations of political leaders that are deemed to be bad for the USA.

 

Are you cool with these assassinations?

 

I understand your premise, but don't really like the wording, and I may be splitting hairs. To me, being cool with something and recognizing it as sometimes being necessary for national security are two different things.

For those that are cool with it, I'd assume you are cool with are president being assassinated as well?

 

No, I don't think anyone is. Which is why we put so much money and effort into protecting him, because we know the threat is real.

It's not something we like to talk about, but the CIA and some other special groups have performed necessary preemptive strikes that have saved many lives. It's not pretty and it's not nice, but at times it's been necessary. Defense of a nation is not easy.

 

I always wonder how people's opinions would be changed, if they had all the info available to them and knew how violent and cruel sectors of the world are.

 

Yet, when Bush was "selling" us on the premise going into Iraq was to topple Sadaam (not the reason sold in the beginning), I pointed out that if the goal was to get rid of Sadaam could have been done by precisely this method. I was soundly rebuked by many of you on this board. The rebuke was something along the lines of "We don't do that anymore."

Yet, when Bush was "selling" us on the premise going into Iraq was to topple Sadaam (not the reason sold in the beginning), I pointed out that if the goal was to get rid of Sadaam could have been done by precisely this method. I was soundly rebuked by many of you on this board. The rebuke was something along the lines of "We don't do that anymore."

 

We cannot openly assassinate the president of a country. Just like we never assassinated Castro or many others that we would like to have seen gone.

We cannot openly assassinate the president of a country. Just like we never assassinated Castro or many others that we would like to have seen gone.

 

No one said anything about "openly" assassinating anyone.