Chicken, bok bok!

'Shoot-to-kill' demand by US:

http://redirx.com/?96h

...and Bush pulls out:

http://redirx.com/?969

What is the point in talking to people if you don't have the right to kill them?

That is funny.... Because, let me get this straight. He is a chicken because he wants his own security when you think the British security is good enough?

And yet on that same page there is a link to a British Protester who got through security to unfurl an upside down American flag, with a florescent jacket no less....

Wow, would you like some hot sauce or ranch with your foot?

These desperate, pathetic cheap shots are really getting old. Its like fourteen year old punkers with anarchy symbols on their notebooks, CLICHE.

I think it is the demanding the right to kill people with immunity that is disturbing.... but I am sure our country would grant that right to foreign diplomats, right?

Well PitPat, we do actually. It even points out that Blair travels abroad with his own armed escort in that very article. Its pretty standard to.

Diplomatic immunity isn't granted as a right, but rather as an act of grace... and doesn't extend to intentional homocide... but even if it did, it would only apply to the diplomat themselves, not to the para-military outfit that accompanies them. I don't think there is anything wrong with having a security force, it is the request that they be allowed to act illegally that is fucked up.

Someone runs up to the head of a country in another country carrying something in his hands. The security folks shoot and kill and it turns out it was a silver balloon not a bomb. Should the guy that shot him be tried for doing what he was trained to do? Or should he have waited for a bomb to go off killing the visiting head of state. Not the US, not Bush, not England. Just a head of state visiting another in general. You are the head of state of the place being visited. The world is focused on you. Do you become the country that let another head of state get killed in? Do you realize now that if you wish to have talks you're more than likely going to have to travel to all the countries yourself and deal with all their zealots?

Killing someone in self-defense, or the defense of others isn't a crime... no need for immunity.

[Edited on Nov 17, 2003 by PitPat]

But the guy had a balloon and was not a real threat. It's just to save money on bullshit criminal trials for doing what you just. Hell we try cops over here and sometimes the shooting was justifiable. But they still get tried

yeah they should get tried... the cost of a bullshit trial is a small price to pay to prevent innocent people from getting shot.

A trial doesn't prevent it, it's the afteraction of a shooting. The whole purpose is basically not lose any secret service people who end up having to wait for trial in a justified shooting.

Do people really think it's just a way of saying "we wanna nail some of the brits"?

THis world is geting suckier by the minute

This is so funny, I've had to pull out of bush quite a few times

Knowing that there will be no consequences what-so-ever to whatever it is you do will give no incentive to act responsibly. So it does prevent "wrongful" shootings... the British prosecutors aren't anymore out to get Americans than we are out to get the British... if the action was clearly a defensive action no charges will be filed at all. If charges are filed it means it is at least questionable whether or not it was justified, and I think in all questionable cases there should be an inquiry, and if the action was found unlawful, then there should be criminal sanctions.


[Edited on Nov 17, 2003 by PitPat]

Yes, I think its cowardly to scrap his speech to Parliament because he feared being heckled by anti-war MPs., which was the very first paragraph in the article I pasted.

GEORGE Bush was last night branded chicken for scrapping his speech to Parliament because he feared being heckled by anti-war MPs.


The US president planned to give a joint address to the Commons and Lords during his state visit to Britain.

So, uhh...

Our distrust of our own allies seems to indicate a lack of trust in our own judgement. While the English people are certainly not in favor of us, and they have a large number of nationalized people of Arabic dissent that is no reason for us to try to subvert the entire city to our will. I aggree - the president needs to be protected - mostly from sharp objects and uncovered electrical outlets, but also from zealots bent on his destruction. But presidents have visited other countries before - his father flipped off an entire country and he didn't need to have a blackhawk fly over his head... seriously though, Dubya has so little faith in his own diplomatic corps that he needs serious heavy duty pacification hardware mounted to his car and flying over his head... hmmm ... maybe he's not as dumb as I have always thought............

Edited cause I mispelled thought - I'm really sinking now!

[Edited on Nov 17, 2003 by marley386]

So you're of the opinion that people are basically evil and anyone with a gun wants to shoot someone? I always thought simple respect for life was enough incentive myself.

And I'm not saying they're out to get us. But it seems to me from that article that the guy who wrote it thinks we're out to get them.

Chicken bush, whats the matter with you.........You don't act like the other chickens do! You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but your not a man your a Chicken bush. bok bok!

aarong said:
'Shoot-to-kill' demand by US:



...and Bush pulls out:



Too bad his Dad didn't pull out - about 57 years ago.

YES

Has anybody heard that quote by bush about america being "easyer" if it were a dictatorship.

Know where I can find it?

-the soggywoggle