i was being sarcastic.
but i have to say, gulf war one - totally justified. nato action against milosevic - totally justified. there may be others but i can't think of them right now.

what is really at the heart of why i posted this is, a so called christian, not to mention christian leader, has called for the death of another human being. jesus nor his father would like that very much.

Gay, too, it seems.

I'm wondering why some of you are looking for proof of atrocities or think that that is what is needed for justification. That angle had never even entered my thought process and I'm surprised that it came up.

[QUOTE=Darth Evad]what is really at the heart of why i posted this is, a so called christian, not to mention christian leader, has called for the death of another human being. jesus nor his father would like that very much.[/QUOTE]

What makes you believe that?

What exactly IS needed for justification? The fact that he doesn't like the United States? Hate to break it to you, but most of the world doesn't like the US.

First let me say that my involvement in this thread is really spiraling into arguments I never intended to get into and actually giving the impression that I hold beliefs that I don't. I'll explain.

My reason for posting initially involved specifically Robertson. I really don't have an opinion of him because he really isn't relevant to me. What I didn't like was that he was being condemned for things along the lines of what Evad recently posted. The quotes I've read and heard, and I have not read or heard the entire segment, gives me the impression that his comments are in the context that if we are going to get involved in a war with Venezuella because of Chavez it would be better to take him out or assassinate him. While I find the concept that we would go to war with Venezuella more than highly flawed, disregarding that and looking just at those quotes, I really don't have a problem with the context he put them in. My problem is more with the argument that a supposed Christian leader should not make statements like that. My position was never to support his actual statements. I hope that makes sense and I can clarify if necessary or anyone can ask me directly what my opinion of specific points within this are.

Now this discussion seems to be turning in to me having to justify how bad Chavez is to justify us killing him or going to war. I don't support us going to war with Chavez and I have no reason to want the man dead. I do acknowledge his involvement with terrorists in neighborring countries, communist dealings, and support of Arab nations which hate all of us. He is not good for Latin America and he alligns himself with enemies of the west.

I hope this clears things up a bit.

Then this too applies to the 90% or so of Venezualans that support Chavez.

Now I genuinely do not care about your wife.
"Hey, I know some people that lived there, or some country vaguely close to it, and this immediately makes them (and by extension me) the authority on history, sociology, politics, political history and general sociopolitical conditions in all of Latin America!"

If any of them have a degree in Latin American history or sociology, then that is fine, that is what gives them qualification. Not their race.

A pig ignorant latino is just as much use as a pig ignorant whitey.

Us Canadians have some pretty damn good snipers too. I think one of 'em made a record breaking shot by hitting a target 2 miles away or something recently.

Actually, latino is not a race. I figured you would say something insulting. I'm not going to debate anyone's credentials. I simply have a cultural advantage you must not.

latino = american hispanic

Also, saying "He's bad, if you don't agree than you have no clue what you are talking about" is not a valid form of argument.

You yourself said a few pages back that you couldn't be bothered to check past a few pages on a google. Bit hypocritical (it was in some other thread that I'll try to find if I have time later tonight).

[QUOTE=Kieran Horn]latino = american hispanic

Also, saying "He's bad, if you don't agree than you have no clue what you are talking about" is not a valid form of argument.[/QUOTE]

Latino still isn't a race. It's an ethnicity. There's a difference. And I didn't say anything remotely similar to that quote.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]You yourself said a few pages back that you couldn't be bothered to check past a few pages on a google. Bit hypocritical (it was in some other thread that I'll try to find if I have time later tonight).[/QUOTE]

It was the Scrabble thread, I believe, and I said my search terms didn't locate what I was looking for at least in the first few pages. He said the search yielded nothing when it actually yields about 27,800 hits. Big difference.

No... I usually go through the first 5 results in a google search and if nothing comes up pertaining to what I was searching for I don't waste time going through every hit but instead try to change my search...which is what he did.

Semantics but when I enterred the search terms I expected to see no results because of what he posted. There were thousands of hits. That isn't "yielded nothing". His post was just poorly worded, that's all.

ethnicity

n : an ethnic quality or affiliation resulting from racial or cultural ties; "ethnicity has a strong influence on community status relations"

race

n. 1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

Oh I don't know... I think we might be able to let him get away with it...

Mort-Hog just pointed out why it isn't an advantage at all. Are you going to refute that, or what? :p

I can't with regards to what he specifically said. If you were born Mexican you'd be a latino regardless of your race. Black Mexicans are Negro in race and latino in ethnicity. Latinos that claim they're a race unto themselves irritate me too.

I think you worry too much, man. We're all just people anyway. If you wanna call yoruself a member of the green race that's fine by me.

He responded to my rebuttal? Where? Now if you're saying that his original comment refuted my response I disagree but if that is your contention, fine. But by his own logic his opinion on the issue is worthless. If he can simply contend that people personally familiar with the issues at hand have no credibility unless they are formally educated on the issue then virtually none of us can have valid opinions.

Trust me, I'm not worried about. I was correcting him in an effort to further illustrate his lack of understanding. Plus, the insulting nature of his comments irritated me.

Yes, I think that would be an adequate assessment. Does that mean we can end this now? :p

Ok. I didn't read the whole thread and I thought you were for some reason advocating war with / assassination of Chavez. Glad you cleared that up. Yeah, I agree, *IF* we had a reason to, it would make more sense to assassinate him than invade, but fortunatly I don't see either ever happening.

I feel I should clarify that I used the exact search string "atrocities of hugo chavez" with the quotes included, which is when Google returns results with that exact line in them.

Simply living in or near an area does not give you authority. Here in Britain there are plenty of people that have next to no knowledge about the history or politics of Britain and could tell you nothing of use about 'British society'. There'd be whole crapload of Americans that know far more about Britain that they do.
Of course, they were BORN in Britain, and that immediately makes them the ultimate authority on all things British!

Exactly the same applies to your wife. There is no 'cultural advantage' brought by simply being born there.

You have to justify that your wife, and her family, are not idiots (Considering she maried you, this requires quite some justification! Ho ho!)
Otherwise, it adds nothing. A few hours of research is more valuable than a lifetime of ignorance.

If a muslim leader had said this, there'd be cries from people that other muslims should denounce the sayer, how terrible it was, etc.

Not only are the same people not denouncing Robertson here, but there are no large scale cries that other Christians should apologise for the actions of Robertson, as though Robertson were part of some large global hegemonic Christian unity such that every other Christian in the world is responsible for his actions. Why not?

How can anyone advocate for the assassination of a popular, democratically elected leader? Frankly, there'd be MORE justification for calling for the assassination of Bush; Chavez is more popular, and hasn't started any wars to boot.

You're not following, and I think you're doing it on purpose. The point is that 'my wife and I have a cultural advantage over you, and I'm right and I don't want to explain why' is bull****. I know several children who believe monsters are hiding under their beds.

What we need is *evidence* and *arguments*, not intellectual laziness.

I know a guy who disagrees with you. He has a PhD. and a really cool car.

But that isn't how I phrased it. I did basically say that if you fall into three catagories then I can't really discuss the issue with you (not specifically you) and that I have an advantage because my entire wife's side of the family, including her, are from the region. My point being I have the advantage of seeing the issue from a perspective most others here can't and that is indisputable. I never implied through any of this that I'm right and don't have to articulate it.

I already listed a few of the reasons Hugo Chavez is bad. Links with regional terror, support of western enemies, and communist inclinations. If someone fundamentally disagrees that those things are bad, there is no reason to discuss the issue.

And, Matt, you're off the mark with the Muslim leader making similar statements analogy. However, our government basically did dismiss Robertson's statements. And what wars has Bush started?

You'd be amazed at how many people don't know how to think for themselves.

A degree says someone went to college and passed their Latin American history classes. It really doesn't necessarily give much (if any) in terms of qualification.

And if half your posts weren't insults, they'd might actually have some value in reading.

<3!!

Hahaha, now you are just looking for fights.

2.43 kilometers, a few years ago in Afghanistan. And it wasn't just a target either. It was a live combat kill.

[QUOTE=Michael MacFarlane]2.43 kilometers, a few years ago in Afghanistan. And it wasn't just a target either. It was a live combat kill.[/QUOTE]

Do you have a link? Google's too much effort for me right now. I'm wondering what type of equipment they used. A Barrett .50 cal?

I can't think of a more perfect place to post this image.

nice.

Wow. Just wow. That has to be the stupidest image I've ever seen.

heeheehee

Dead-on.

Now I'm strangely reminded of Futurama - "They no dunk well, but they got good fundamentals." Somehow, I think that applies here metaphorically. I'm not really sure how, because I'm too lazy to think about it much right now.

I think it was a McMillan Tac-50, actually. Article here. Couldn't find an article on the actual shot from a real news service, though I did find a couple about the guy being sent home for inappropriate conduct.

Where is your wife from, Wookie06? Just curious. Because that, in my opinion, does make a difference. I agree that living in a region is not the same as being an expert on it, but it's better than me picking up the newspaper and skimming the headlines to make opinions on things.

And by the way, I am taking a course on Latin American politics this semester, so in 3 months I'll destroy all of you with my superior knowledge.

Just saw this at the bottom of an article I was reading:



So, basically, the US has suspicion that Chavy's government tortures people. Whether or not it's something like a gulag or a Camp X-ray, I'm not sure of though... maybe just people with sticks.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/americas/12504960.htm