What is Digg?Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 50 Most Christmassy City Names view!
realtor.com - Put yourself in a holiday mood by reading about these cities and towns with festive names.
10 Comments
- eocarroll, on 11/03/2009, -1/+5A US government hit squad that roams the world carrying out assassinations unilaterally without the knowledge of local authorities? I can't see how anyone could possibly have any objections to that.
- sheeplescareme, on 11/04/2009, -4/+6Gov't, by its very nature, is force. Coercion is not righteous.
Gov't cannot exist without taxation; slavery. Japan and the spring of 1942 were unneccessary and not in self-defense. All gov'ts are empires, hence they cannot help but to undermine other "legitimate" gov'ts (though as to what constitutes legitimate...). Gov't cannot care for people without first stealing from another, creating a bureaucratic agency to manage the welfare division, and creating a gap and a monopoly in the economy wherein private organizations and persons have proven to excel. If one cannot rob from another in your righteous nation, why do you give leave for the nation to do so to its people?
You argument lacks logic, though it is likely that your heart is in the right place. Further, though that is how you have chosen to define a "righteous nation," there are many who will disagree and even if it existed, would do their best to pervert it for profit and power. - sheeplescareme, on 11/03/2009, -4/+5Who will decide what constitutes a "righteous nation"? This cannot ever be legitimate, no matter how you cloak it.
- Bichengyi, on 11/04/2009, -2/+2One that cares for its people more than its profit.
One that makes no war on other nations unless in complete self defense (Japan and 1942 spring to mind)
One that seeks not to undermine legitimate governments of sovereign nations.
One that cares for the poor, the weak, the hungry, the orphan, the lame, physically and mentally handicaped, homeless, addicted, and so forth as a priority.
One that holds to the principles of mercy and justice wherein one cannot rob the other.
I think that would be a good start. - Cimmaron, on 11/10/2009, -1/+0Read the paper. You can find it at http://jsoupublic.socom.mil -- the WIRED article really misrepresented the paper, quoting only the most sensational aspects. The paper is much more even-handed. It looks at history, and asks "where in the past have nations pursued individuals who threatened the population? What lessons does that history teach? If we're going to do this in the future -- since we're doing it more and more -- what's the best way to do so?" WIRED and Noah Schachtman, shame on you! You totally skewed a solid academic study, pushing "hot buttons" to get attention. What's more, you made this sound like an official report, when there's a disclaimer in the front that clearly says "this paper is the opinion of the author and not of the US government..." What hack journalism...and how sad that the only way you can bash this paper is to misrepresent its message. This paper is fascinating.
- brad3378, on 11/05/2009, -2/+1I'm all for this idea if it gets criminals off the streets.
- taylordobbs, on 11/03/2009, -2/+1I didn't know Tom Clancy wrote for Wired...
- Bichengyi, on 11/03/2009, -5/+2One step away from the Secret Police...In a righteous nation I say yes...In this current de-generation I say no way! Who will decide what an enemy of the state is? How long before some group falls out of favor and becomes hunted?
Enough of this stuff goes on behind the scenes as it is...if you make it legitimate and give it a budget...well let's just say be careful of what you wish for... - Gilhully, on 11/03/2009, -3/+0I hope this would let us get Osama bin Laden. What we are doing now doesn't seem to work.
- NoLibertarians, on 11/04/2009, -9/+3Why not.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is