Naturally, the United States refused to sign a treaty banning the usage of cluster bombs, which are notorious for killing and injuring civilians , even long after conflicts have ended.
Because we don’t give a shit about little kids in other countries.
File under “The Case for Assassination”.
Whoa, whoa, just kidding! File it under “Finger Wagging at that Charming Rascal Bush” Deep down inside, he’s a good guy, and we must uphold the rule of law. Besides, the framers set up the system of checks and balances so a president would never get too much power. Right?
Please share widely!
What happened to “the new birth of freedom” Lincoln spoke about?
<
p>http://showcase.netins.net/web…
<
p>Lincoln also was a war president. The Gettysburg Address was a war speech – yet it upheld the principles that our nation was founded on.
<
p>Under Bush, it is only the war profiteer who prospers.
<
p>Democracy, the rule of law, and the role of America as a moral leader have all been trashed under Bush.
<
p>What ever happened to the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower? It should be Republicans rising up to repudiate the president who disgraced America and rendered the Republican Party anti-democratic, and the creater of the biggest spending spree, largest deficit in American History.
<
p>Our children’s children will be paying for Bush’s outlaw reign.
The United States has not used cluster munitions in Iraq or Afghanistan since the beginning of these conflicts, even though it maintains an inventory
<
p>The United States has not used a land mine since they were “banned”, even though it not a signatory to the ban, and maintains an inventory.
<
p>The United States has not used a nuclear weapon since WW2, even though it maintains an inventory.
<
p>China, Russia, Israel, India and Pakistan – all major cluster bomb stockpiler’s and producers, have also declined to participate in the Dublin talks.
<
p>Though your deceptive and inflamatory title may play well to the cheap seats – in the real world, unilateral disarmament is the opposite of deterrence.
<
p>And as to your assassination “joke”? – Beyond ignorant – do grow up.
Why don’t we just sign the durn treaty then? We’re in counterinsurgency warfare, cluster bombs are the most unproductive thing we could use, that’s why we don’t. It’s hard to imagine a future scenario where we’d actually use them, the PR blowback isn’t worth the limited military effectiveness.
Why maintain an inventory if they plan to never use them? Profitable contracts? And the United States’ refusal to sign the treaty makes it easier for Israel to continue using them, as they have recently. In terms of the other thing, it’s better to have one dead tyrant than 10,000 innocents. If the colonists could have accomplished independence by a stealth move on George III, I’m sure they would have attempted it- it would have saved a lot of lives.
Blanquism is certainly a repugnant way to attempt to make (or pretend to make) social progress, but toying with it does not violate the rules of the road.
The downrated comment was not some attempt at a scholarly discussion of “blanquism”.
<
p>Clearly, he suggests that the President of the United States should be murdered.
<
p>It is also the second time in about a week that Mr. Farkoff has floated his odious proposition.
The 3 is for odious propositions, the 0 is for being odious.
…that to propose the assassination of the President and the Vice President is, in fact, being quite odious.
Agree or disagree? What if elections were in fact “stolen”, as has been alleged by various voices on the left? If the democratic process is nothing but a charade, aren’t we in fact already living under a tyranny?
Well, one thing is clear from this CNN article: the US Military will keep using cluster bombs, unless they are just saying that so they can keep buying them, which I suppose would be a different type of immorality.