I don't understand why they leave this guy alive, they should have jailed or killed him already. He serves no purpose other then to muck up the peace process. I would think that Israel would have taken him out already. DD
1) Wrong forum. 2) I think they have tried it, but it would be very bad PR to kill a nobel prize in peace winner.
Wrong. This is the right forum. That is not a Debate...it's a fact. Wax that Islamic fascist crazy forker.
Because the US has basic moral principles we operate under (in theory). Not assassinating people is one of them.
Israel has no such qualms (as they have shown with Hamas leaders), and since they would be the ones to do it, I am a little surprised it hasn't happened. Oh, and the US doesn't really have problems with assassination, lest we forget Uday and Qusay.
at least not directly or where we can be directly traced to it easily... the US has a long history of removing the leaders of other counties, not just by sponsered assisnation, but with funding of the opposition movement, armng the opposition movement, and now we can add to the list, invasion.
It is a valid question to ask. There are some who believe the death of Arafat, by any means, is a logical option. That makes it a viable question/opinion even if some of us don't agree.
maybe I'm missing something, but why would a discussion of whether Arafat should be killed be offensive? Whether you kill one guy or many, the objective is to change the direction of things. If killing Arafat makes the situation better, then killing him makes sense. Of course, the Mideast would probably explode, and that's the reason no one has killed him. But it's not for any moral reason or any US policy. We kill who we need to, when we can get away with it. Saying we did it would be surprising, but doing it would not be surprising.
I know I'm missing something as a rule (like part of my mind), but when did anyone say it was offensive? Dadakota is so hyperbolic that I think I cannot be offended by him. It could only be an offensive statement to the intelligence of the readers. Perhaps we could rename the thread "Why not just dump a cup of water on a grease fire?" Strike that. "Why not just dump a cup of grease on a grease fire?"
B-Bob just keeps making my posts for me. I said I would pass on this discussion, but for the life of me, can anyone make an intelligent argument that killing this a**clown is going to anything other than lead to hundreds dying right off the bat and even more instability than we have there already? Not to mention "rewarding" the extremist Israeli government by giving a nod of approval to what they are so eager to do? Is that where we have decended? Rewarding extremists for killing extremists? No matter how many innocents will die, Palestinian and Israeli? We want to ensure terrorism directed at the US has even more recruits by patting Sharon on the back, smiling and looking the other way while he builds a new Berlin Wall and kills every leader of the Palestinians... with a dozen just as bad or worse that we don't know from Adam springing up to take their place? That's the kind of unsophisticated, do it in broad daylight, who gives a s*** country we are becoming? Whatever happened to cunning intelligence and the high art of diplomacy. Instead, we have the low, blustering wit of Wolfowitz, Rice and Rumsfeld advising a man who is so far over his head that he can't even see how deep the water is. This sounds like just the sort of thing they would go along with. What the hell? A bunch of people from both sides are gonna die anyway... so what if we ramp the numbers up one hell of a lot and get even more fanatics painting a bullseye on the good old USA. Hey, we're the superpower of the world! And golly, maybe we'll get lucky and it'll work out. Someday, by bullet, bomb or Mother Nature, the basta*d is going to die anyway. Do we have to do it ourselves?
Hey DaDa, some genius might say in response why not just kill Sharon? Oooooh that would be an act of terrrrrra... I almost forgot.
