Like I said before, these guys think the authorization to use force against terrorists wherever they are perceived which was turned into the authorization to invade Iraq is all they need to start another front, the only prerequisite is that we change our perception of a particular country.
World War is nothing to these guys, they are wealthy enough to weather the storm. In my opinion, they should be the first ones executed upon the start of a global conflict. They cannot be allowed to hold the positions that will allow them to profit off the misery of the world.

helen,
you go girl!! you’re a national treasure!!

Thank god Helen is BACK (the Bushbots banned her for years) asking the questions no one else has the guts to ask.

Is anyone DOING anything about the threat of this “new” war? Time to get off our butts, people!

Jed-

Do you really have the balls to execute someone or would you just get a vicarious thrill out of having some psychopathic adrenaline-junky do it for you? Do you really understand the implications of what you are advocating?

Ole,

You really seem to be on a semantics kick of late. What is this, Comp 101? Do you REALLY think Jed is an advocate of Capital Punishment? If I was a convicted murderer awaiting sentencing, I’d rather it be he that made the choice than you.

Semantics? Try syntax. I can only take Jed at his word: “In my opinion, they should be the first ones executed upon the start of a global conflict.” That kind of talk propagates hatred and the will to do violence.

For the record I am opposed to capital punishment.

There is a big difference between explicitly advocating violence against a particular person or group of persons and the insinuations that you are making with respect to certain US policies. Granted, some of those insinuations might be well-founded – I won’t presume to try to refute or support them right now – but, the equivalency that you suggest exists between your call for execution of certain people or groups and a support for particular policies that you have chosen to single-out is invalid. Statements like the ones you made foster animosity and perhaps even precipitate actual violence. If you truly believe that there is no other alternative, then posting on RS is probably not the best forum to utilize to address this concern. I suggest that the honorable course of action would be to retract the statement you made, instead of obfuscating matters with more of your incessant vitriol. Would this not be more constructive or at least more in line with the brand of optimism you occasionally espouse?

could you identify who it is I am explicitly calling on? you seem to have some sort of intuition or insider information, please elaborate.
Of course you won’t touch the comparisons, they are rather inconvenient in that they are valid. How is my statement any different that those on here that have been calling for bombing Iran? I havent heard you call for their sensure, did I miss something?
The same men who lied us into invading iraq are following the same squema for Iran, but you find THAT death, killing and destruction acceptable, but getting rid of the 5% that control 85% of the wealth and incite 100% of the wars is reprehensible?
I think I’m begining to understand why you protect these whores so much.

while you’re at it, could you please expound on the differences you see in “between explicitly advocating violence against a particular person or group of persons and the insinuations that you are making with respect to certain US policies”.

BTW- I don’t think they were insinuations, most people reading and almost all posting understand I am being clear about the GOPs policies.

Jed-

I was assuming you were referring to the administration: “Like I said before, these guys think the authorization to use force against terrorists wherever they are perceived which was turned into the authorization to invade Iraq is all they need to start another front, the only prerequisite is that we change our perception of a particular country.”

well, assuming is the right word.
the guys who run the administration and our government are merely small time helpers. they do not hold the reigns but buck the horse anytime they want to. Except maybe Cheney, those guys are stooges who have been manipulated into treason of their country and their constitution for political and financial gain. In the wash, it is just financial gain and envy of God’s power and a desire to be more powerful than God… whom they conveniently use when necessary but have no real belief in.

Instead of letting us be side tracked by diversionary arguments, I recommend focusing on whats going on here. I think the question we aught to be asking of our governments intentions with Iran need only look as far as the people running this administration. Groups like PNAC, by their own actions public and (failed) private have shown their goal is and has been to invade Iran. From the evidence, there is no question that they have been aiming for this opportunity and every subversive and corrupt move they have made (all the way back to rumsfelds loaded 3rd try at a threat assessment after the first two didn’t get the answers they wanted) has shown their slow and steady movement towards this goal. So, the questions Helen asks are indeed not over the hypothetical.

Shapeshifter,

Does anyone have a reasonable explanation of why?

Oil — Not likely
World Hegemony – Pretty Lame
Ideology – I doubt it

Aliens intent on stealing the life force and the water. hummmm!!!

Water?

water = life