death penalty

[Cheech]

So an internet spammer will get 9 years, but these two sad excuses for human beings will get MAXIMUM 5 years.. Tell me there's something wrong here!!! If it were up to me, they'd be dead! And I'm not a supporter of the death penalty>....

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=33866233-b68b-4d9d-b98c-842c361792d7

[dwayne]

Absolutely disgusting... there's really nothing else to say on the matter...

[heat]

Beyond personally wanting to throttle the "parents", where in the heck was the child welfare department in this case??
There will always be bad people, but I'm certain there would have been a case worker, someone, supervising the welfare of these children? How the heck could it have possibly gone on for any length of time without people knowing??

[ryan]

I on the other hand am VERY for the death penalty. I think cases of severe child abuse and any case of child molestation or rape should result in taking the offenders behind the courthouse and filled with lead.

ryan

[Dangerdoll]

speechless, I am....

[Tyler718]

5 years! You have to be kidding me! This right here is a prime example how the court system and a lot of the laws just doesn't work. :mad: I guess I'm in the belief of "an eye for an eye." They should do the same thing to them as what they did to these kids. But associations like the ACLU, Amnesty International, etc.... would never let that happen. It would be to cruel to them or step on their blessed rights. But that is a whole other topic.

Okay now let me step off my soap box.

[dwayne]

I was too disgusted in my first reply.... I am 100000% for the death penalty, perhaps not for these parents... that would be too easy for them... they should have to spend the rest of their lives sitting in a pen the same size as the one they kept the kids in, as well as have to wear diapers...

child rapists, child murderers, (99% of all murderers) should all be given the death penalty, and to allow room just in case an error was made in their case and they are not guilty, they should be given ONLY one year for appeal.

[Cheech]

I just hope that when they get old and out of jail, they die a long and lonesome death, with no one to ever love, care, call, or even acnoledge their existance. . .

one thing though, when they do go in the pen, I'm pretty sure that the inmates won't be too happy to hear about what they did.. Even criminals don't respect that kinda stuff. Hopefully the inmates will do some justice and give them what they deserve; as ironic as that may sound.. .

[Dangerdoll]

I agree Tara, I think the death penalty is an easy way out sometimes, ESPECIALLY for these characters. There is absolutely no reason in the world ever in any lifetime that someone would need to put another human being, let alone 2 through that kind of torture! *tsk* it's breaking my heart!

[slipknottin]

eh, child abusers dont tend to do too well in prison. 5 years in prison might be the death penalty for them....

[geoffgarcia]

I took a death penalty debate course in college.
Everyone had to learn the facts and argue it forward and back, on both sides.
By the end of the course the entire class was unanimously against the death penalty based on the arguments of federalism, cost, execution of innocents and deterrence.

its not something to be treated lightly.

[chunksofpoooo]

I took a death penalty debate course in college.
Everyone had to learn the facts and argue it forward and back, on both sides.
By the end of the course the entire class was unanimously against the death penalty based on the arguments of federalism, cost, execution of innocents and deterrence.

its not something to be treated lightly.


i absolutely agree with geoff

[tomm10]

I took a death penalty debate course in college.
Everyone had to learn the facts and argue it forward and back, on both sides.
By the end of the course the entire class was unanimously against the death penalty based on the arguments of federalism, cost, execution of innocents and deterrence.

its not something to be treated lightly.

The death penalty is one of those topics that the public rarely discusses with facts. Its a very emotional issue to many just like a lot of other controversal topics.

I find it odd to hear some Christians (Not necessarily here. Not pointing fingers) argue for the death penalty since one of the foundations of the faith is that human life is not ours to take.

[StreetCypher]

I took a death penalty debate course in college.
Everyone had to learn the facts and argue it forward and back, on both sides.
By the end of the course the entire class was unanimously against the death penalty based on the arguments of federalism, cost, execution of innocents and deterrence.

its not something to be treated lightly.
I've discussed capital punishment in many of my crim classes. Its a hottly debated subject, and always will be.

Just some things to know about it.
1) the death penalty is VERY EXPENSIVE. With all the legal costs (appeals and court time costs), the time the accused spends in jail waiting (on average 9 years from time of sentence until the death sentence is carried out.) the costs add up straining an already burdened justice system.
2) Many INNOCENT people have been executed.
3) It is NOT an effective deterrent of crime.
4) The nature of our legal system is subjective and therefore DISCRIMINATORY
5) More on a moral note, why reduce yourself to the level of the offender (or worse) in the case of murder.

Whew... i can't believe i remembered all that.

[slipknottin]

1) the death penalty is VERY EXPENSIVE. With all the legal costs (appeals and court time costs), the time the accused spends in jail waiting (on average 9 years from time of sentence until the death sentence is carried out.) the costs add up straining an already burdened justice system.

technically the death penalty isnt expensive at all, its the legal costs associated with it. You could remove some of the legal aspects of it, but seeing as weve already executed a decent amount of innocent people, thats probably not a good idea.

I support a near total reform of the death penalty, not the abolishment of it. I believe prisoners should do hard labor while in prison, and if the person is truly evil enough, should not have the option of life, as society should not pay to keep such a person alive.

[aquariumfishguy]

Legal costs are all associated with the death penalty though, that is the way our great country works. They want to minimize (supposedly) the risk of executing those who are innocent, and they want to keep things as politically correct as possible, if not for the family members - for the press! So yeah, it is more expensive to give someone the death penalty than it is life in prison. What gets me is the severely mentally incompetent people who do not even know what is going on, and whom still get the D.P. (yes - it does happen).

I too took a class in college on the death penalty, I wrote a 21-page paper on the matter, and did extensive research. Just one innocent executed by "accident" is one too many, but we all know the numbers are much higher than that. And for those who say this is the price to be paid for executing monsters, I say let it be your innocent child, or your innocent spouse, or parent who is executed.

Do you honestly think you could confidentially say that the death penalty should still be used as a form of punishment? Hell - they eat better than most as last meal and (in most cases) get a simple injection. Some punishment. Do most people know that the psychopathic people, who are often put to death, feel little to no emotion? Better yet, does anyone realize that these people often do not care whether they live or die?

[slipknottin]

I too took a class in college on the death penalty, I wrote a 21-page paper on the matter, and did extensive research. Just one innocent executed by "accident" is one too many, but we all know the numbers are much higher than that. And for those who say this is the price to be paid for executing monsters, I say let it be your innocent child, or your innocent spouse, or parent who is executed.

IMO, its better than having a loved one stuffed in prison for life.


Do you honestly think you could confidentially say that the death penalty should still be used as a form of punishment?

Nope, I feel it should be used to eliminate those that are useless to society. No reason to keep them alive and have us foot the bill for it.

[chunksofpoooo]

IMO, its better than having a loved one stuffed in prison for life.



holy crap dude, thats just messed up.



The fact that they even know that innocent people have been put to death means they did follow up investigations. If the innocent person was in jail, rather than dead, then the mistake could have been fixed. Life isnt something we can just take.

[slipknottin]

holy crap dude, thats just messed up.


How so? I personally would much rather be killed than forced to live in a 6x6 room for the rest of my life. And you do realize that those on death row often get more appeals than those that get life, right?

IMO, life without liberty isnt worth living.

[chunksofpoooo]

sorry man, your talking about yourself. i thought you were talking about your mom or something. imo if someone you love got life at least you could work as hard as possible to get them out if you know they're innocent. if they die....well....they're dead

[slipknottin]

imo if someone you love got life at least you could work as hard as possible to get them out if you know they're innocent. if they die....well....they're dead

Its not like they are put to death the next week, they are allowed alot of appeals and chances to get released,(part of the reason it costs so much) heck, often times more appeals than those who arent on death row. Notice how almost all of those investigations about innocent people are focused on those on death row? How many people get out of life? Ill bet its a fraction of the number.

I still stand by my original statement that the death penalty is no worse (and often better) than life in prison. Of course you could just look at suicide and attempted suicides in prison to realize that Im not the only one that feels this way...

[chunksofpoooo]

but dont you think that if the death pentalty was abolished then the investigations could focus on the life sentance people? those on death row obviously get higher priority, they're gonna die. I just dont think we can decide whether someone deserves to live or not. It seems like the death penalty is less of a "cleaning up the scum" and more of a "getting revenge" kinda thing. Dont you think that life of hard labor would be a bit worse (considering most of those who get the DP dont know or care whats happening, they're generally mentally "damaged")?

call me a wuss, but i just dont think we can determine whether another human deserves to live or not

[slipknottin]

but dont you think that if the death pentalty was abolished then the investigations could focus on the life sentance people? those on death row obviously get higher priority, they're gonna die.
I doubt it would. I believe those investigations take place mainly because people are opposed to the death penalty. Not because they are looking out for people wrongly convicted. There are very few groups that do that.


I just dont think we can decide whether someone deserves to live or not.
Whats the difference bewteen that and deciding if someone should be locked away in a box for life? Seems like in either case you are essentially putting someone away.



It seems like the death penalty is less of a "cleaning up the scum" and more of a "getting revenge" kinda thing. Dont you think that life of hard labor would be a bit worse (considering most of those who get the DP dont know or care whats happening, they're generally mentally "damaged")?
I dont advocate the death penatly as a revenge for anything. I believe it should be significantly cheaper than giving someone life in prison, and should be utilized to remove people that are no benefit or future benefit to society.

And I believe mentally damaged is a somewhat broad issue, and yes, some of them should also get death. IMO most of the more violent criminals are mentally "damaged" one way or another. Unless we were going to study them, investigate their ideas/thoughts, to possibly prevent that same type of behavior in the future, I see no reason why they should live. They are of no benefit to society.

[chunksofpoooo]

this could go on forever. I understand the points you've made, but i dont think we're gonna convince eachother to change our minds. Thanks for offering me a new perspective

[anonapersona]

My spouse was called for jury duty and so we just discussed this, as it will likely be a question for potential jurors.


IMO, you have to look at what your objective is (this is a handy method for all decision making).

If the objective is to keep people from killing people, a deterrant, it doesn't work. Murder is not a rational act, most of the time. The thought of the death penalty may slow someone who is beating a man to death, but it doesn't slow someone pulling a trigger.

If the objective is to protect society from someone who cannot be relied on to refrain from beating someone to death or pulling the trigger to kill someone, then it works, that one person will not kill again, society is protected. And, no, I don't think that prison is as effective here, people get killed in prison, being in prison does not mean that the convicted cannot kill again.

If the objective is justice, then I don't know, I don't think that justice is served by putting someone to death.

Now, I realize that my position, that the death penalty is Ok in order to protect society but not to serve justice, means that the criminally insane and mentally retarded are more likely to be put to death even though they may not comprehend their crimes. But it is because they cannot comprehend what they have done that I think that they are more likely to do it again, so society is in danger. No fair trying to put them in prison for life if they kill someone who is there serving time fairly -- how would you feel if your brother was in for some petty crime, almost ready to get out and got knifed to death by some criminally insane thug who never should have been allowed to hurt another person?

[125gJoe]

..........
...
I support a near total reform of the death penalty, not the abolishment of it. I believe prisoners should do hard labor while in prison, and if the person is truly evil enough, should not have the option of life, as society should not pay to keep such a person alive.

It's a difficult subject, but I agree.


----
Society

The totality of social relationships among humans.
A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.
The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.

[daveedka]

Well, every trip to GCC finds some interesting threads.

Most of the arguments here are the same ones always brought up, and I have to hold with slip as far as my personal opinion.

The two comments I would like to address are the following:

If the objective is to keep people from killing people, a deterrant, it doesn't work.
The fact is that when the death penalty was actually used quickly and consitantly it was a great deterrant to crime. In this day and age, there a few states that actually carry out the sentences in any type of reasonable time frame, so it doesn't deter crime as it should. People live on death row for years and years in many states, and can always hope for and count on the laws being changed before their sentence is carried out. if they knew they were going to be put to death, there would be less of these types of crimes. it is the same problem we have with sentencing of all types. A criminal recieves a life sentence and is out on parole in a few years, they are far less likely to be worried about the consequences.


Hell - they eat better than most as last meal and (in most cases) get a simple injection. Some punishment. Do most people know that the psychopathic people, who are often put to death, feel little to no emotion? Better yet, does anyone realize that these people often do not care whether they live or die?

They are still dead, they are still not able to hurt anyone else. I believe in being very humane, And do not believe in revenge as a motiff. If we allow them to live then they get pretty much a life of luxury at our expense, the only thing they lose is their freedom (which is a big deal I agree), but most prisoners live better than the innocent people out trying to make ends meet, so the death penalty is still worse than life in prison.
Dave

[aquariumfishguy]

I guess you have to walk a mile in their shoes to get it. Personally, I haven't been placed in jail, or anything of the sort. However, in my research I did interview numerous people who were facing a death sentence. One kid (notice the word kid) was barely 18, and was waiting to see if he would live or die. I feel that these young kids can be rehabilitated and sent back into society (many of them, not all) to be productive people. Some of them literally cry themselves to sleep at night - male and female. I am not trying to show sympathy towards these people, I just want others to realize some people make mistakes, and deserve second chances.

... Not all on death row cold bloodedly killed someone. Some have been raped or molested numerous times. Should they die for turning out how they were raised (taught)? It is an interesting question.

And even after all is said and done in this thread, I would bet my life that if any of you lost your loved ones to the DP and they were in fact innocent, you’d be pretty pissed and want revenge on the system as a whole.

[slipknottin]

Not all on death row cold bloodedly killed someone. Some have been raped or molested numerous times. Should they die for turning out how they were raised (taught)? It is an interesting question.
Hence why the system needs a makeover. And age has little if anything to do with their ability to be rehabilitated.


And even after all is said and done in this thread, I would bet my life that if any of you lost your loved ones to the DP and they were in fact innocent, you’d be pretty pissed and want revenge on the system as a whole.

And that would be no different than if one of my loved ones was sent to prison for life. In either case they are essentially gone.

[125gJoe]

Death or Life Imprisoned --

It can be obvious some do not "belong" in society.

I can give an updated example as "not belonging in society" .

Saddam Hussian. Dictator, ruthless murderer, extremely sadistic beyond imagination .


http://www.illustrators.net/gibbs/newimages/michael_gibbs/gibbs_death_penalty.jpg

[ryan]

As strange as it may sound i am actually more for capital punishment in cases of severe child-abuse and molestation than i am for capital punishment in murder cases. Once murdered a person's suffering is over, but abuse and molestation victims often suffer lifelong effects which severely limit their ability to lead a happy healthy life. Not only that, but molesters/rapists have one of the highest rates of recidivism (repeating the offence) among criminals.

I have met far too many girls in my life who suffer because of what some *** hole uncle or creepy neighbor did to them.

ryan

:edit: also, many murderers are victims of child abuse or the like at a young age, resulting in stunted development (the average IQ in prison and death row is significantly below average). instead of pruneing leaves go to the root of the problem.

[aquariumfishguy]

And age has little if anything to do with their ability to be rehabilitated.

Many psychiatrists would beg to differ with you on that point. There are some people who believe that even psychopaths started out innocent. An 18 year old can much more easily overcome any “life obstacles” experienced in ones life, versus a 50 or 60 year old who **** well knows what their intent is, and why they are doing what they are doing. Is it really much different than a 2-year smoker vs. a 50-year smoker who tries to quit?


And that would be no different than if one of my loved ones was sent to prison for life. In either case they are essentially gone.

I think if one of your parents were fried, you'd be a little more than angry that they're "essentially gone". They are gone period, and nothing you could think up would bring them back (as someone else mentioned).

Having a parent in prison for life isn't the best either, but certainly you still have them in your life, however brief that may be. Unless you are extremely pessimistic, I would like to think that you'd always have hope that your parent would be found innocent of all charges, hence being released.

Do you think there is light at the end of the tunnel when the same parent is injected with a drug and sent to 'sleep' for all eternity? No way, especially when the system still exists and that person knows other innocents will be executed in the same year (most probably).

Indeed, revisions to this form of “punishment” should be made.

[slipknottin]

Many psychiatrists would beg to differ with you on that point. There are some people who believe that even psychopaths started out innocent. An 18 year old can much more easily overcome any “life obstacles” experienced in ones life, versus a 50 or 60 year old who **** well knows what their intent is, and why they are doing what they are doing. Is it really much different than a 2-year smoker vs. a 50-year smoker who tries to quit?
And there are plenty that would beg to differ with you. Appeal to authority. Not all the experts agree.



I think if one of your parents were fried, you'd be a little more than angry that they're "essentially gone". They are gone period, and nothing you could think up would bring them back (as someone else mentioned).
Very rarely if ever would something you think of get them out of prison. And as I said, people on death row often get more appeals than those who arent.


Having a parent in prison for life isn't the best either, but certainly you still have them in your life, however brief that may be. Unless you are extremely pessimistic, I would like to think that you'd always have hope that your parent would be found innocent of all charges, hence being released.
Extremely pessimistic? The chance of someone getting released from life is rarer than someone getting freed from death row.


Do you think there is light at the end of the tunnel when the same parent is injected with a drug and sent to 'sleep' for all eternity? No way, especially when the system still exists and that person knows other innocents will be executed in the same year (most probably).


I have no idea what your asking.

[aquariumfishguy]

And there are plenty that would beg to differ with you. Appeal to authority. Not all the experts agree.

Well are we talking about sociopaths or someone who is just very troubled? There is a big difference, and I will totally agree with you that someone who is to the point where they truly have no remorse for anything they do (in other words, they just "felt like" killing someone) probably could never be rehabilitated to go back into our society. However, a troubled kid should not be dealt with the same as an adult. If so, we'd have all the same laws for minors as we do for consenting adults.



Very rarely if ever would something you think of get them out of prison.

That is probably very true. But again, there is still a tunnel with dim lights for those who are in jail and are innocent. I suppose that tells the difference from the innocent and guilty? Who knows.


I have no idea what your asking.

Rhetorical question! ;)

[slipknottin]

Well are we talking about sociopaths or someone who is just very troubled?
Doesnt really matter. Not all the 'experts' believe that anyone can be rehabilitated.



That is probably very true. But again, there is still a tunnel with dim lights for those who are in jail and are innocent. I suppose that tells the difference from the innocent and guilty? Who knows.
As I said, I would personally rather be executed than live my life in prison. Hell if I lived in prison for the majority of my life then was released, I probably wouldnt be able to deal with that either. And as I said, attempted and successful suicides in prison are not rare events... There are alot of people who cant live in prison for a great deal of time.

[gonefishin]

I guess I'm in the belief of "an eye for an eye."
if we look at the bible, an eye for an eye is the old testament, which is actually the history of judaism.(remember, christ was a jew) In the new testament we are told that we should "turn the other cheek". Now I understand the separation of church and state, but our laws have a large connection to our faith. In god's eyes, sin is sin, murder is equal to adultry is equal to dishonesty, etc. Why couldn't we love these people, and teach them by example. I don't feel what they did is right, but I can almost guarentee they have some deep down emotions that caused this. IMO, the guy who injects the drugs, turns the switch, or pulls the trigger is guilty of murder as much as the person being exicuted.

[chunksofpoooo]

if we look at the bible, an eye for an eye is the old testament, which is actually the history of judaism.(remember, christ was a jew) In the new testament we are told that we should "turn the other cheek". Now I understand the separation of church and state, but our laws have a large connection to our faith. In god's eyes, sin is sin, murder is equal to adultry is equal to dishonesty, etc. Why couldn't we love these people, and teach them by example. I don't feel what they did is right, but I can almost guarentee they have some deep down emotions that caused this. IMO, the guy who injects the drugs, turns the switch, or pulls the trigger is guilty of murder as much as the person being exicuted.


thank you, gonefishin, for putting this out there. I was hesitant to do it myself.

[125gJoe]

There is a need for the death penalty.
Have you had Dahmer as your neighbor?


-----------

On another relevant subject....

We are now forced to deal with 'terrorists'.

I should not have to remind us of the Twin Towers.

There are barbarians out there that have no problem at all with 'taking your head off'...

Get the big picture..

[aquariumfishguy]

I also agree that murder is murder. You go on ahead, pull the switch, inject em... but I couldn't live with myself if I killed someone. The only way I would ever do that is if I had a life or death situation at my home or something. But to kill someone as a job, well that takes someone special (is that even the right word?).

Whatever. You can kill someone by death row but yet it is looked down upon to kill someone, even in self-defense in today's society. No, I don’t get how some people work, not at all. They hide behind the bible and use the bible when it is convenient for them (the government), but any other time it is just for “those that believe”. OK…..

[Tyler718]

if we look at the bible, an eye for an eye is the old testament, which is actually the history of judaism.(remember, christ was a jew) In the new testament we are told that we should "turn the other cheek". Now I understand the separation of church and state, but our laws have a large connection to our faith. In god's eyes, sin is sin, murder is equal to adultry is equal to dishonesty, etc.

This is a different point of view to look at. It is something to think about. Especially when he said, "He that is without sin cast the first stone" when the prositute was to be stoned. But if you follow this then there should be no court system or laws at all. Then where would we be?


Why couldn't we love these people, and teach them by example. I don't feel what they did is right, but I can almost guarentee they have some deep down emotions that caused this. IMO, the guy who injects the drugs, turns the switch, or pulls the trigger is guilty of murder as much as the person being exicuted.

So do you think that by showing them a good example for 4-5 years going to fix a 43 and 51 year old? I don't think so.

[aquariumfishguy]

But if you follow this then there should be no court system or laws at all. Then where would we be?

You have to give him a break on that - I mean, it is a stretch. As I said, the government or whomever use the bible whenever it works for them. But in the end, if you believe and/or follow the bible you are doing wrong in murdering. If you read (or also believe in) the bible, you'd also know that laws are necessary and are not to be broken. However, does God say anything about putting people to death and that being O.K.? Enough of the bible aspect of it from me.........


So do you think that by showing them a good example for 4-5 years going to fix a 43 and 51 year old? I don't think so.

Do you mean in prison time? Who gets 4-5 years for cold-blooded 1st degree murder? If so, maybe I should look into that - might be worth it in some cases!

ONLY KIDDING. :soda:

[slipknottin]

Now I understand the separation of church and state, but our laws have a large connection to our faith.
Not at all, our goverment and legal system are not based on christian principles at all.

Nearly all the founding fathers were deists or unitarians.

[Tyler718]

I also agree that murder is murder. You go on ahead, pull the switch, inject em... but I couldn't live with myself if I killed someone. The only way I would ever do that is if I had a life or death situation at my home or something. But to kill someone as a job, well that takes someone special (is that even the right word?).…..

So let me ask this. So those of us in the military are murders for our duties? I was in Iraq last year and have no regrets for it.

[Tyler718]

Do you mean in prison time? Who gets 4-5 years for cold-blooded 1st degree murder? If so, maybe I should look into that - might be worth it in some cases!

ONLY KIDDING. :soda:

I believe he was refering to the people in the article. I don't believe they should be put to death, but they should have gotten more than the 4-5 years they got.

Also no more religion for me. Who know who's really right. :D

[slipknottin]

Also no more religion for me. Who know who's really right. :D

dangerous argument to get into when half the board wears signatures that are quotes from the bible. ;) I learned long ago not to bring it up. :D

[aquariumfishguy]

So let me ask this. So those of us in the military are murders for our duties? I was in Iraq last year and have no regrets for it.

Well... that would depend on who you talk to. Murder is often seen as an unlawful crime, and is usually premeditated. In that case, you might not be considered a murderer. On the other hand, to murder can also just mean to kill brutally or inhumanly, or simply to put an end to, destroy. (found in the dictionary).

That isn't to say the cause wasn't just or unnecessary... as said, who knows who is right or wrong when it comes to war. We could get into heated debates talking about that. But regardless of whether it is right or wrong, it is still killing someone. If you do not have any problem with that, it is OK. That is why you were in Iraq in the first place. I'm just saying I couldn't kill somebody.

I don't know - I tried answering that one as best as I could. It all would depend on your personal beliefs, and so on. Nobody can condemn you for your beliefs, as we are not judging you in the end (again, that goes back to your beliefs, if you believe someone judges you once you die).

[daveedka]

I also agree that murder is murder. You go on ahead, pull the switch, inject em... but I couldn't live with myself if I killed someone. The only way I would ever do that is if I had a life or death situation at my home or something. But to kill someone as a job, well that takes someone special (is that even the right word?).


One of the reasons this is getting so confusing is that the death penalty is being classified the same as murder. They are not remotely related. Just like killing someone on the battlefield is not remotely related. The death penalty is punishment for a crime committed. It is a consequence of an action. No different than the consequence of lighting a stick of TNT and holding it until it blows up. The person "pulling the switch" Is no more guilty of a crime than someone who works in a meat packing plant, or a fisherman that eats what he catches. Folks who don't see it that way, probably shouldn't apply for the job. When we set out to get revenge, then we are guilty, when we set out to serve justice we are not. there is a difference and it is a big difference.


Whatever. You can kill someone by death row but yet it is looked down upon to kill someone, even in self-defense in today's society.

Not sure what society you are referring to, but to my knowledge there are only a few places in the United states where it is frowned upon for someone to defend themselves. And those places are generally viewed as odd and ridiculous.

Dave

[gonefishin]

Yeah, that's a tough one. Regardless of wheather its right or wrong, it's not our place to say. you did what you had to, and I'm sure the iraqi people who are now free from the hell that was sadam are greatful. As am I.

[aquariumfishguy]

daveedka - the fact is, who is to say you are more qualified than the next person to kill somebody? So if I work for the government, I can flip the switch, but I still shouldn't feel bad because it was my job? It really isn't confusing at all... killing is killing. I believe that is what a fellow poster had mentioned. No 'higher being' appointed a specific individual to kill, and another to be classified as a murderer, just because it wasn't a legal killing. Whether you should feel bad about the given killing would depend upon your beliefs, the situation at hand, and so on. That’s all I was getting at.

[Tyler718]

I don't want to jinx this, but I'm glad that we are able to debate without any of us to lose our cool or turn it personal. :D


daveedka - the fact is, who is to say you are more qualified than the next person to kill somebody? So if I work for the government, I can flip the switch, but I still shouldn't feel bad because it was my job? It really isn't confusing at all... killing is killing. I believe that is what a fellow poster had mentioned. No 'higher being' appointed a specific individual to kill, and another to be classified as a murderer, just because it wasn't a legal killing. Whether you should feel bad about the given killing would depend upon your beliefs, the situation at hand, and so on. That’s all I was getting at.

I reread what I posted late last night. I think I might have came across the wrong way or wasn't elaborate enough in what I posted. :)

I don't have any regrets for what I did since I feel that it was for a just cause, but it doesn't mean that it was easy. I didn't find it easy in the least or enjoy it one bit. If I did, then I think I would have some serious issues I would need to work out with myself.

As posted earlier by a few, if "killing is killing", then wouldn't self defense in your home or protecting your family be just as bad? What I'm getting at I guess, where is the line drawn between right and wrong? Each person has there own point of view, but very few people have the exact same view.

[Tyler718]

dangerous argument to get into when half the board wears signatures that are quotes from the bible. ;) I learned long ago not to bring it up. :D

I know that for sure. That is why I bowed out on that aspect of the debate. :D

[aquariumfishguy]

As posted earlier by a few, if "killing is killing", then wouldn't self defense in your home or protecting your family be just as bad? What I'm getting at I guess, where is the line drawn between right and wrong? Each person has there own point of view, but very few people have the exact same view.

You don't draw a line... I would kill for my family, and yes I would think that it is morally wrong. But I would kill someone before someone would kill any one of my family members, or friends for that matter. It is something I would have to live with. I just couldn't kill somebody who did nothing to me, that’s all.

And yes, it is nice to have a clean debate for a change. ;)

[chunksofpoooo]

There really isn’t supposed to be a line; theoretically we all get our just punishment, or reward, at the end of our earthly life. Like I said before, I don’t believe we were put on this earth to judge whether another human gets to live or not. Hopefully, our purpose on this earth is to do good, help others, follow in God’s footsteps, and ultimately to be judged on those actions. So if we take the life of another human we destroy, or greatly shorten at any rate, any chance they have of redeeming themselves in God’s eyes. Theoretically its really very easy to redeem yourself, we see it all the time with people on death row. But if they are really sorry for what they did, then they pose no threat to society anymore and killing them would destroy any chance they have to do good for others. If they aren’t really sorry then they get their punishment at the end anyways (which, in my opinion, is far worse than death). I realize how incredibly stupid this must sound for those of you who don’t believe in God, and even for some of you who do. I hope I haven’t come across as preachy, I hate that stuff, I’m just posting my opinion. I also realize how hard it is to follow that belief in today’s world. It’s hard to have faith in humanity with all the screwed up things going on. It would be, obviously, very hard to sit back and watch your family get attacked; I don’t expect anyone to be able to do that, I know I wouldn’t be able to. But killing someone isn’t always the only option, if someone breaks into your house you don’t have to fill his head full of pellets from your 12gauge, a call to the police and a simple “ca-choock” is generally enough to stop someone. ;)

[aquariumfishguy]

You make much more sense than you think... ;)

... Even though I believe in God, I also believe in a sense of "karma" too. Have you ever noticed when you are a real jerk to others, it usually comes back to bite you in the rear @ ten fold? A simple comment that might hurt someone’s feelings could come back to make your whole week a wreck. At least that is how it works out for me, so I try and be nice to every person who treats me nice. The old 'golden rule', huh?

Anyway, that’s wandering slightly off topic, but in a sense, maybe not. Could that 'rule' apply to killing others? Hmmm… who knows?

[125gJoe]

You make much more sense than you think... ;)

... . Have you ever noticed when you are a real jerk to others, it usually comes back to bit you in the rear @ ten fold? ,.......

No. :laugh:

[aquariumfishguy]

Oh hush - you're too busy with your laughing gas to notice when others get riled up! :p

[Tyler718]

You make much more sense than you think... ;)

I agree. To think people were stressing out with your screen name when you first came. :D



... Even though I believe in God, I also believe in a sense of "karma" too. Have you ever noticed when you are a real jerk to others, it usually comes back to bite you in the rear @ ten fold? A simple comment that might hurt someone’s feelings could come back to make your whole week a wreck. At least that is how it works out for me, so I try and be nice to every person who treats me nice. The old 'golden rule', huh?

Anyway, that’s wandering slightly off topic, but in a sense, maybe not. Could that 'rule' apply to killing others? Hmmm… who knows?

Kind of like " what comes around goes around." I try to follow the same thing. It is more rewarding by treating people how you want to be treated.

[Tyler718]

Oh hush - you're too busy with your laughing gas to notice when others get riled up! :p

The bad part is that he isn't sharing with all of us. :D

[aquariumfishguy]

Really... that is pretty selfish, huh? :D

[plantbrain]

If a man kills his wife and they kill him for that crime, then would we condem a man convicted of rape to......?? :laugh:

I think we must hold ourselves to a higher standard than the person committing the criminal act.

Legitimized murder, whether it's War, state sponsered capital punishment or self defense is the last thing people should do to another. CP is murder by the state. The leaders are allowed to make rules that decide if another person lives or dies.

Unlike self defense, we have a choice with the other two.
They are not personal, it removes any real reason for conflict.

I can chose not to be a soldier and kill other people.
I can chose not to support CP.

I wouldn't argue SD was a choice personally.
But the other two are and many innocent people are killed in this manner that we do have a choice over.

The Iraqi shop keeper who had his home and business destroyed, blown to bit by the US soldier, wife dead, are they chosing this? I do not think so. If I do not want to join the miltary, do I have a choice? Yep. At least for right now.

I doubt we have to kill also for self defense. Police apprehend suspects daily without killing them. I can defend myself without killing someone but even with a weapon, you don't have to shoot them in the head/heart.
But these are often very rare cases. War? CP?
Quite a few of those going on.

We held ourselves to a higher standard than the bad sports and we should, when punishing others as well. We don't do the same things the bad sports do. But some folks think that's okay I suppose.

An intersting situation is assisted suicide for terminally ill people. That's not legal, but capital punishment is? I have a difficult time understanding the pro life stance and the rational of CP.
The two are dimetrically opposed.

Both are choices, but which is the right choice for you?

Somethings have no easy answers.

Regards,

Tom Barr

[Tyler718]

The Iraqi shop keeper who had his home and business destroyed, blown to bit by the US soldier, wife dead, are they chosing this? I do not think so. If I do not want to join the miltary, do I have a choice? Yep. At least for right now.


Did the countless thousands have a choice when Sadam was commiting genocide, had rape and torture rooms? I don't think so. How long would people be killed there until someone would step in?

[125gJoe]

Did the countless thousands have a choice when Sadam was commiting genocide, had rape and torture rooms? I don't think so. How long would people be killed there until someone would step in?Yeah.. Remember the 'human shredding' machines? Lots of folks just choose not to believe this has happened..

[greeneyedlady]

If a man kills his wife and they kill him for that crime, then would we condem a man convicted of rape to......??

castration, but only in cases where there is absolutely no doubt as to who the rapist is, ie--DNA

Dahlmer--he didn't make it long in the general population, his "peers" took care of him (he should have been castrated, just my opinion)

Child abusers should have to suffer from the same abuse that they perpetrate on their victims.

murders in cases of absolute "caught red handed" cases--public hangings

as for the "innocents" that have been "accidently" executed, I am sorry for them but unfortuately no country has a perfect justice system, that is why I say it should only be done in cases where there is absolutely no doubt as to the guilty party, who decides well in today's world it is amazing what forensic evidence can turn up--take the guy who a couple of years ago murdered his wife and put her body in a wood chipper to dispose of the body, they had him cold he should have gotten the "wood chipper" instead he will probably rot in jail forever living off the public $buck$.

[happychem]

What a great debate! And more importantly, kudos to the cool-headedness that's been kept even while heatedly debating!

I think that deep down I'm opposed to the death penalty, namely because I can't see myself being the one to pull the switch. It's not a great basis for argument, but, as a general guideline, it's how I live my life: I'm hard pressed to support something indirectly that I would be hard pressed to bring myself to impose directly.

There are lots of really good arguments against, but there are times when I agree with GEL about things like those caught red-handed, 6 feet of rope is as cheap is it comes.

But I think that we're looking at the soldiering aspect in the wrong way. There is a lot of good that has been done through the military, but even in cases where the cause is wrong, the guilt doesn't lie with the soldiers but with the government. Not all Nazi soldiers were anti-semites, most were just proud of their country and fighting for a cause, just one example. Now this has to be taken within reason because I've heard the 'I-was-just-following-orders' defence for some truly horrible action, which isn't really fair either. In any case, I don't think that it's fair to lump in soldiers in a debate on the death penalty.

I try to live my life by the golden rule, do unto others and all that. It would be really nice if the whole world could adopt this, but it ain't gonna happen. If it worked, well, so would communism, but it doesn't because there are always going to be people who are going to try to make their living at the expense of others, and that's just counting those who are doing it consciously.

I think that for them, the best deterrent would be to make prison life a truly miserable experience. It should be the very last place one would want to be, but I know for a fact that it is not. There are plenty of folks back home who would just as soon be in prison as in their grimy little apartment. But not only that, they should be working to repay society for their wrongs, and then some for our trouble. IMO, if you're not fit to be a part of society, then you should be put to work to help it out, not be a drain on it.

As for the mentally/chemically imbalanced, there is a narrow tightrope indeed. There are some that are perfectly safe, so long as they're taking their meds. Unfortunately, society refuses to be 'cruel' enough to make these a condition of their freedom. I remember when I was living in Montreal about 10 years ago one such person pushed an innocent bistander in front of a subway train. He couldn't be imprisoned because he "didn't know what he was doing", but at the same time, the hadicapped rights folks argued that it was unfair to force him to take meds that made him feel bad.

[aquariumfishguy]

...who decides well in today's world it is amazing what forensic evidence can turn up

And yet our very own legal system hardly ever utilizes today's technology, for cost purposes. If they used half the forensic media available today, we might not be having this discussion at all.

[plantbrain]

Did the countless thousands have a choice when Sadam was commiting genocide, had rape and torture rooms? I don't think so. How long would people be killed there until someone would step in?

Until someone stepped in? Err you mean like the USA when we supplied Iraq with weapons during Reagan and help gas the Kurds?
One of my friends is a Kurd that left back in the 1980's. The USA has looked the other way for the last 30 years. Not until it became $$ and politically interesting did the USA step in with proven false pretext and assumptions.
Saddam was the USA's closest pal then.
Rumsfield was Saddam's pal then. USA or Saddam? What difference does it make?

What choice does the average Iraqi have but to fight against Saddam and the USA? Which oppressor does it matter?
Those people are not terrorist/insurgents/masterminds, they are doing what I'd do if China came here and wanted to impose communism on the USA.
There are many ways to fight against injustice, not just killing people.

Two wrongs still don't make a right.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[125gJoe]

.... ... you mean like the USA when we supplied Iraq with weapons during Reagan and help gas the Kurds? .....Two wrongs still don't make a right.... Sadaam changed, and turned into something horrible. So the U.S. changed, and took him out of dictatorship. How the U.S. gassed the Kurds I will never understand. If a Dictator misuses weapons then whos action and fault is that?

It has been proven over and over that Sadaam was hiding 'illegal' weaponry (U.N. banned). Was working on a nuclear site for weapons - video of the trucks fleeing U.N. workers with cameras.


As far as China goes, I hope we are keeping a watchful eye on 'it'....

[125gJoe]

... had rape and torture rooms? I don't think so. How long would people be killed there until someone would step in?How long? Some might have wanted to wait, until nations all over took differing sides. Then we could all be involved in something similar to WWII. Most likely much worse.

[happychem]

This is getting off topic, but it's still a good debate.

The problem with the invasion of Iraq is that it was entered into for the wrong pretenses. Yes, there was a brutal dictator, but the country was nonetheless in a state of relative peace before the invasion. There weren't any human rights atrocities actively being comitted, at least none that were being reported. History has shown that there was indeed no evidence of weapon of mass destruction, and from the little I understand of nuclear weapons, you cannot build them in the back of a truck.

Had the argument for invading Iraq on the grounds of human rights been made when Sadam was in the act of gasing Curds, or perhaps even more recently, then there would likely have been more support, or at least, less controversy. But this argument was not made and it is not appropriate to use it after the fact. The reasoning for invasion was the presence of wmd's and the immanent threat, human rights and the doposition of a brutal dictator were not argued (or at least reported on) until well after it was obvious that the closest they would come was a truck with detectable levels of, wait for it, ammonia. I think that it was a mobile fishless cycling unit, which would probably get Tom riled up enough anyway ;) . jk, this topic needs a little humour.

Yes, some good may come of this, and I hope that Iraq is stabilized, but democracy is not established in a year, perhaps not even in a decade.

For myself, I won't buy the human rights argument. If that were the issue, you could pick almost any country in Africa where tribal divisions and religeous lines seem to be an ever lasting source of ethnic cleansings, rapes, murders, tortures and all that other fun stuff that people do when they forget that we're all humans together on this rock hurtling through space.

[chunksofpoooo]

Sadaam changed, and turned into something horrible. So the U.S. changed, and took him out of dictatorship. How the U.S. gassed the Kurds I will never understand. If a Dictator misuses weapons then whos action and fault is that?


oh well.....I thought I could avoid this debate, as I generally do avoid most debates, but looks like I got sucked into another one....darn you all.

As far as your comment is concerned joe, I cannot completely agree with you. Like happychem said, we were a bit late in our actions against Sadaam. I’m not saying he wasn’t a horrible man, I’m just saying it was a bit..."off topic."

As far as being surprised about misusing weapons (I still laugh at the concept of "misusing".....like there’s a right way or something), well...common man, that’s like being surprised at a bully for beating a kid up after you give him a shiny new set of brass knuckles to play with. Directly, yes, it was Sadaams fault and his action, indirectly, it was our fault....and in my eyes that’s just as bad.

I might get a few Bush supporters riled up with this comment.... but you guys won the election so I don’t care. I don’t think that Iraq was about removing Sadaam, hell, I don’t even think that Iraq was about Weapons of mass destruction. I think it was about Bush's falling approval rating. The war in Afghanistan wasn't showing results....I mean, how could it? It was a war on terrorism, which is a lot harder to fight considering there aren’t any defined enemies....your next target could be that dude standing over there, or it could be that old lady walking up to you (if you remember Vietnam, the VC used civilians as walking bombs). When we moved to Iraq because of "weapons of mass destruction" and "a threat to peace loving countries everywhere", we immediately were able to see results. We continually bashed our way in and "won" the war (I say "won" because we're still fighting). We were "fighting the good fight" and kicking some serious butt. If you look back, Bush's increased approval rating and the movement in Iraq link up pretty well.

But like plantbrian said:

"What choice does the average Iraqi have but to fight against Saddam and the USA? Which oppressor does it matter?
Those people are not terrorist/insurgents/masterminds, they are doing what I'd do if China came here and wanted to impose communism on the USA.
There are many ways to fight against injustice, not just killing people.

Two wrongs still don't make a right."

I could not have said it better myself.



On a different note, I’m a lot more worried about Asia as a threat. Look at it.....We have North Korea with the second largest standing army (not to mention that little thing about the ability to launch nukes at us...), China has the worlds largest standing army, the second largest nuclear arsenal (or Russia....not sure). Then we have India and Pakistan, both of which are threatening each other with nukes. It’s just not a good time over there. So, another possible reason why we're in Iraq and not North Korea is because Iraq doesn’t have China to back it up, which would make things a lot harder.....
Speaking of Asia... I’m still mad at the US for allowing Japan to join the war against Iraq. If we all remember our WWII history, we'll remember that we set up Japan's constitution so that they cannot be an aggressor. That means no wars unless they are threatened.....ooooohh, Iraq.....big threat to Japan....yeh, right. If we're gonna set up other countries laws, we should at least make an effort not to override them every time it’s convenient to us


Id also have to agree with happychem on his statement about human rights in Iraq. I’m sorry to say this, I really am, but the average American does not care about the rights of the Iraqi people. If that were the case, then just like happy chem said we would also be in Africa, South America, Central America, and Asia. I realize that there is a very big list of places to start (quite frankly, I’m more worried about our own education and all the poverty/homelessness), but Iraq was just a bit "random."

I’m not saying there aren’t people out there who care, I’m just pointing out the general sentiment. I realize that there are thousands of people and many many orginizations to help other countries, its just that the average American doesnt really care about the religous wars in Africa, or the near political revolution in Mexico.

[dwayne]

What a great debate! And more importantly, kudos to the cool-headedness that's been kept even while heatedly debating!

I agree whole-heartedly!!!


I think that for them, the best deterrent would be to make prison life a truly miserable experience. It should be the very last place one would want to be, but I know for a fact that it is not. There are plenty of folks back home who would just as soon be in prison as in their grimy little apartment. But not only that, they should be working to repay society for their wrongs, and then some for our trouble. IMO, if you're not fit to be a part of society, then you should be put to work to help it out, not be a drain on it.

Prison should be like Azkaban in "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban". THEN nobody would willingly do stuff that would land them in prison. Many, many prisons are horrible places, but most range from tolerable to somewhat-pleasant-you-only-know-you're-in-prison-because-you-can't-leave. Sometimes prisoners are sent to prisons that are equal to their crimes, others aren't.

Murderers, rapist, child molesterers and child abusers, and drug dealers who knowingly endanger the lives of kids (deal near schools, use kids to deal or as mules) should be in the worst prisons of them all... NO tv, NO radio, NO books or magazines, NO painting or other hobby things. Prisoners should only be allowed 5 minutes of fresh air per day, taken out 3-5 at a time so as to not allow mingling. Showers? Once a week, if that. Meals should all be in their cells. NO visitors except attorneys, and that's only if your case has an appeal pending. I could go on and on... ack... I just don't have the patience for horrible people who are not getting their due.

~Tara

[heat]

Hey, while we are at it, can we alter the rules governing dead-beat parents to make it a child negligence charge? Felony if they are over $1000.00 behind, etc??

[Tyler718]

I have to agree with everybody. I have enjoyed the debating with out people losing their cool. :dance


The problem with the invasion of Iraq is that it was entered into for the wrong pretenses. Yes, there was a brutal dictator, but the country was nonetheless in a state of relative peace before the invasion. There weren't any human rights atrocities actively being comitted, at least none that were being reported. History has shown that there was indeed no evidence of weapon of mass destruction, and from the little I understand of nuclear weapons, you cannot build them in the back of a truck.

DID PRESIDENT BUSH LIE ABOUT WMD? OR WAS HE GUILTY OF LISTENING TO THESE "EXPERTS?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Tyler718]

Man this has gotten way off topic.... Maybe this has been built up for too long. :D


I might get a few Bush supporters riled up with this comment.... but you guys won the election so I don’t care. I don’t think that Iraq was about removing Sadaam, hell, I don’t even think that Iraq was about Weapons of mass destruction. I think it was about Bush's falling approval rating. The war in Afghanistan wasn't showing results....I mean, how could it? It was a war on terrorism, which is a lot harder to fight considering there aren’t any defined enemies....your next target could be that dude standing over there, or it could be that old lady walking up to you (if you remember Vietnam, the VC used civilians as walking bombs). When we moved to Iraq because of "weapons of mass destruction" and "a threat to peace loving countries everywhere", we immediately were able to see results. We continually bashed our way in and "won" the war (I say "won" because we're still fighting). We were "fighting the good fight" and kicking some serious butt. If you look back, Bush's increased approval rating and the movement in Iraq link up pretty well.

I'M CONFUSED ON THIS...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good...
Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes -- good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes -- bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator -- bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

[chunksofpoooo]

i never said anything about Clinton being good...

quite frankly i think the man should be castrated, but thats just my opinion. All im saying is that the switch to Iraq was a bit odd, and it came at an interesting time

[125gJoe]

This is getting off topic, but it's still a good debate.

....... and from the little I understand of nuclear weapons, you cannot build them in the back of a truck.......

My post was to show how Iraq kept 'thumbing it's nose' at U.N. inspections. Supplies are brought in by truck, and brought out by truck. There was a lot of video proof of this on the news at the time....

[Tyler718]

i never said anything about Clinton being good...
....All im saying is that the switch to Iraq was a bit odd, and it came at an interesting time

I was trying to compare that Clinton did just what you posted, but he didn't get the same remarks thrown out about him. It was like he got a free pass on what was being put out in the media.


quite frankly i think the man should be castrated, but thats just my opinion.

See we can agree on somethings. :laugh:

[greeneyedlady]

Do I get to use the rusty saw, oh please, let me :D

[Tyler718]

Do I get to use the rusty saw, oh please, let me :D

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Dangerdoll]

ewwwwwwwwwwwww!!! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[happychem]

Oh, I certainly agree that Sadam was violating the '92 armistice (I think it was '92) and that he was past due for a lesson. My point was that the reason given for invading was wmd's and not the deposition of a dictator with a long string of human rights violations. I don't think that I recall his human rights record brought up once in the wind up to the war, it may have been mentioned in passing, but was by no means the argument for engagement, nor was it reported about by the major news stations.

The point that I was trying to make was that this whole line of reasoning about deposing a brutal dictator, while true, is spin. The bushies realized that they weren't going to find wmd's (and that there was too much attention there to sneak in some) so they fell back on what was left. Suddenly no one mentioned wmd's any more and it was all about the human rights.

It was about as funny and frustrating as watching CNN try to be objective and not sensational. It was like watching CNN go from the "yay! war!" mentality, through "we're looking for and will find wmd's", to "what were you thinking?".

Much like CNN's about face, it seems like people are too willing to forget that the initial reason for the invasion was shown wrong, indeed that there seemed to be little convincing evidence along those lines to begin with. I agree that it wasn't Bush himself who made the call, he's a puppet anyway. However, I think that the administration was atrociously uncritical of the evidence brought before them. I suppose as a scientist I find it frustrating, I have to (with good reason and gladly) doubt every piece of information I receive. It must be analysed and tested for validity and to see whether it makes sense or is consistent with other data.

All the evidence that has come out leading up to and since the invasion has indcated that this administration was single-minded in their desire to invade. In time, the UN would have aided, it was just a matter of waiting. Why? Because the UN doesn't act quickly, on a single piece of evidence, or with the same agenda. Granted, the UN has had a dismal record in some places (cough--rwanda-cough), but it's still as good a platform for testing the validity of a cause. To defend your plan in front of hundreds of people, several of whom are skeptical or opposed to you to begin with forces you to present a strong and irrefutable case. The fact was that the 'immanant threat' was not shown. In time, however, the UN would have had to act to enforce its own ruling, lest others take advantage of them. But, of course, we'll never know.

In summary, no, I don't think that they lied about wmd's. I think that they misused shaky evidence and didn't check it for consistency. I suspect that they discarded evidence that suggested that there weren't wmd's (or an immanent threat), but kept positive evidence.

[125gJoe]

Sadaam's human rights atrocities were mentioned by major news stations, and not just 'in passing'... I'd like to post about a recent 'mass grave' of women and children with only minor details, but it's to horrendous....

The evidence is there, and it's not just "spin"..

By the way, I'm not arguing, but rather posting my side on this. I support out troops in this matter, and it's about time something was done until - and much worse, wait for immenent threat.

[Tyler718]

Much like CNN's about face, it seems like people are too willing to forget that the initial reason for the invasion was shown wrong, indeed that there seemed to be little convincing evidence along those lines to begin with. I agree that it wasn't Bush himself who made the call, he's a puppet anyway. However, I think that the administration was atrociously uncritical of the evidence brought before them. I suppose as a scientist I find it frustrating, I have to (with good reason and gladly) doubt every piece of information I receive. It must be analysed and tested for validity and to see whether it makes sense or is consistent with other data..

I agree that the reason we went in proved to be wrong, but with the intel they had and from the intel from other countries made it look like that way.

I believe the intel community is not as strong as once was. Under the Clinton Administration funding was drastically cut and trimmed back to meet that budget. Clinton even passed laws that put limits on how the intel community gets it information. They are now just trying to get it back to where it should be.

So to relate this to your field of expertise, wouldn't it be hard to test and analyze data if you had tough constraints put on you. For example, being way under funded, being told how you gather your data, etc....


...In time, the UN would have aided, it was just a matter of waiting. Why? Because the UN doesn't act quickly, on a single piece of evidence, or with the same agenda. Granted, the UN has had a dismal record in some places (cough--rwanda-cough), but it's still as good a platform for testing the validity of a cause. To defend your plan in front of hundreds of people, several of whom are skeptical or opposed to you to begin with forces you to present a strong and irrefutable case. The fact was that the 'immanant threat' was not shown. In time, however, the UN would have had to act to enforce its own ruling, lest others take advantage of them. But, of course, we'll never know.

There was so many resolutions that Iraq was thumbing it's nose at. When would the UN have acted? They didn't react over the 12 years leading to this war. The UN is more reactive than proactive.

The UN would have NEVER authorized this when countries like France and Russia had their own hidden agendas. The majority of the security council said yes, but these two decided to use their automatic veto power.

The main problem I have with the UN is this, I feel we shouldn't have to go ask for permission to protect our national security. We don't need a "World Litmus Test".

[happychem]

So to relate this to your field of expertise, wouldn't it be hard to test and analyze data if you had tough constraints put on you. For example, being way under funded, being told how you gather your data, etc....

I certainly understand being underfunded! Anyone working in a research institute in Canada can tell you about that! After over 10 years of the Liberal government cutting funding to, well, everything, a lot of our institutions are becoming hard pressed to produce research of equal quality to that being produced States-side or in Europe. Most of our equiptment is antiquated by modern research standards. We can still produce equally good data as anyone else (for the time being) but it takes twice as long or worse. Part of the reason that my initial project collapsed was because in order for me to get data I had to a) go out to sea to gather it, which is affected by budget cuts to boats and the fact that our coast guard (who I would be travelling with) have been losing a boat a year to cuts and b) had to send my samples to Ireland for analysis because no one here has the proper equiptment.

I'm getting off topic, but the point is that even with budget cuts, we can't use that excuse for bad data, we just have to work twice as hard and if, with what we've got, we cannot conclusively say one thing or another from our data, we cannot report it. I understand that the fate of the world and/or national security doesn't hinge on marine concentrations and stable isotope ratios of methyl chloride, but the underlying principle is the same.

In their situation, they have to report what they have, for my part (and they may have, I didn't read the reports, of course) the report would have had to be loaded with "we really don't know" 's and "inconclusive data". You could say that "from what we've seen" or "from the little we have to go on" "it looks like there may be a threat, but the evidence is inconclusive" or something to that extent. It's acceptable to report partial or preliminary data and estimates based on them, so long as they are presented in that manner. The lead up speeches and reports to the public left little doubt that there was a clear and present danger.

As for the UN, you're right, they had certainly been snoozing for the past 12 years. Once of the best things to come of this is that the UN will have to smarten up. I think that there is a big problem with vetos and that this is not the first time the problem has arisen, it allows too few people to press their own agenda. Who knows what Russia or France's agenda was? I agreed with their veto on the basis of the evidence I had heard and seen on the news, such as it was. But when Chirac said that he would veto no matter what was just plain rediculous. As long as there are people who are more interested in squabbling, agendas and petty disputes, the security council and the UN will be doomed to be a cumbersome and slow moving body.

Again, I agree with you that a world litmus isn't necessary to protect your national security, I don't think that anyone could argue that. But there wasn't any evidence that Iraq was a threat to national security. Al Qaida was based in Afghanistan with support from the Taliban (who should have been ousted the moment they started after those 3000 year old Buddhist statues!), members and money were largely Saudi, Saddam was far too moderate to ever get along with any of the radicals like Bin Laddin. The threat did not appear to be there, nor were there any convincing arguments as to how these wmd's were to be used against the US. All the while N. Korea managed to build a better rocket.

[Tyler718]

In their situation, they have to report what they have, for my part (and they may have, I didn't read the reports, of course) the report would have had to be loaded with "we really don't know" 's and "inconclusive data". You could say that "from what we've seen" or "from the little we have to go on" "it looks like there may be a threat, but the evidence is inconclusive" or something to that extent. It's acceptable to report partial or preliminary data and estimates based on them, so long as they are presented in that manner. The lead up speeches and reports to the public left little doubt that there was a clear and present danger.

I definitely agree with this. What I'm trying to figure out is where the breakdown was. There was all this intel being thrown at a lot of this country's leaders and Britian's. They had both parties convinced here; Blair and Parliment convinced in Britian. That is a lot of people to convince. Was there political twist thrown in? I'm not sure.


But there wasn't any evidence that Iraq was a threat to national security. Al Qaida was based in Afghanistan with support from the Taliban (who should have been ousted the moment they started after those 3000 year old Buddhist statues!), members and money were largely Saudi, Saddam was far too moderate to ever get along with any of the radicals like Bin Laddin. The threat did not appear to be there, nor were there any convincing arguments as to how these wmd's were to be used against the US. All the while N. Korea managed to build a better rocket.

The threat I think was the capability of him giving / selling them to the terrorist networks. Money can make a lot of people to get along.

I agree that N. Korea is a threat along with Iran, India, Pakistan, unaccounted for missiles that belonged to Russia. I'm not niave enough to think that America can solve all this alone. We will need some world support, but not niave enough to wait on them to come aboard.

[chunksofpoooo]

Under the Clinton Administration funding was drastically cut and trimmed back to meet that budget. Clinton even passed laws that put limits on how the intel community gets it information. They are now just trying to get it back to where it should be.

Clinton was an idiot, even democrats can agree with that one. The point is that we shouldnt be making the same mistakes so soon after they happened.




I agree that N. Korea is a threat along with Iran, India, Pakistan, unaccounted for missiles that belonged to Russia. I'm not niave enough to think that America can solve all this alone. We will need some world support, but not niave enough to wait on them to come aboard.


North Korea is a touchy issue...and i dont think we can do anything about it without world support. Why? China, thats why. A war with N. Korea isnt something we should let a Cowboy talk us into, its not something we can even come close to winning without support from other world powers. Taking on the worlds largest, and second largest standing armies together just isnt good news. We might have control of the sky and sea, but that can only get you so far. Our troops are great, but we're talking about sheer numbers that we just cant match by ourselves. Definitely something we want to watch out for, but definitely something where a "preemptive strike" isnt a good idea at all.

[aquariumfishguy]

Actually, I think you'd be hard pressed to find strong democrats who did not respect Mr. Clintons works. He was highly intelligent, and skilled to be President material IMO. And why does everyone give Bush a hard time but not Clinton?

...Probably because Clinton didn't have nearly as many (if any) ulterior motives like Bush has. And also, Clinton might have lied to us about his personal life, and his little fling with the 23 year old intern was wrong... but as far as his presidency goes, he had our country booming, and world peace in general was a success. So perhaps that is why the public has thumbed their noses at everything Bush has done - because even though he might make the "right" decisions (which is still matter of opinion), nothing is to show if it. So what, he captured Saddam Hussein. Our world is still in shambles as far as I’m concerned. Next...?

[geoffgarcia]

The death penalty is one of those topics that the public rarely discusses with facts.as evident by this entire thread...
its unfortunate (IMO) to see uneducated/emotional arguments on this topic.

I read way to many posts that favored the dp based on emotion, without citing a single reference or fact...

[aquariumfishguy]

I don't know if you self-qualified me as one of those cases (people), but to be clear - the facts are out there. The facts themselves do not support the death penalty, but I will confess I only know that because of the previous research I have done on the topic.

[125gJoe]

...... So perhaps that is why the public has thumbed their noses at everything Bush has done ......
Our world is still in shambles as far as I’m concerned. Next...?
"World in a shambles"?

I was going to ask, what "public" are you referring to -- but, no don't answer that.


:D

[bayoupr]

Devil with the blue dress on....... Clinton's contribution, whoops gotta find some stain remover.

[Tyler718]

North Korea is a touchy issue...and i dont think we can do anything about it without world support. Why? China, thats why. A war with N. Korea isnt something we should let a Cowboy talk us into, its not something we can even come close to winning without support from other world powers. Taking on the worlds largest, and second largest standing armies together just isnt good news. We might have control of the sky and sea, but that can only get you so far. Our troops are great, but we're talking about sheer numbers that we just cant match by ourselves. Definitely something we want to watch out for, but definitely something where a "preemptive strike" isnt a good idea at all.

I most definately agree with this statement. This is one that worries me the most. 1) You can't really tell where China stands on this. 2) The Korea War lasted so long that it turned into a stalemate. 3) Also, our military is not the size as it was back then. The only way that it could be built up to that size again in a quick or timely manner is through a draft, which I hope never happens again.

[Tyler718]

....Probably because Clinton didn't have nearly as many (if any) ulterior motives like Bush has.

If you recall, when we went into war with the Serbs and Bosnia he was taking a major beating in the press about White Water and then the Lewinski scandal. Both times it drew all attention from these issues to the war. Once in war, we hardly heard a lot less about them. And this is not an ulterior motive? Kind of like the movie "Wag the Dog"


...and world peace in general was a success.

Is this the world peace under the 8 years of Clintion you refering to:

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed

19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

I can't leave out that Syria offered Bin Laden to the US, but he turned them away.

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today.

[ryan]

If you recall, when we went into war with the Serbs and Bosnia he was taking a major beating in the press about White Water and then the Lewinski scandal. Both times it drew all attention from these issues to the war. Once in war, we hardly heard a lot less about them. And this is not an ulterior motive? Kind of like the movie "Wag the Dog"



Is this the world peace under the 8 years of Clintion you refering to:

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed

19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

I can't leave out that Syria offered Bin Laden to the US, but he turned them away.

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today.

Bosnia was the closest thing to a holocaust since WWII. Full scale death camps and full scape RAPE camps in operation. Wag the Dog or not i see no fault in intervening there.

Also, I can hardly fault a president because he doesnt "find those responsible." Bush made the same promise about bin Laden post 9/11. but I dont blame bush for not finding Bin Laden because he has little to do with it, hes not climbing through the tunnels. In the end finding someone whos really good at hiding comes down to luck.

Blaming clinton for 9/11 is absolutely rediculous. No one person or one hundred persons can be blamed for that, and even if Bin Laden had been captured prior to 9/11 it would simply make him a martyr. Bin Laden alone was not responsible for 9/11. He had a major part in it but you can't just place all the blame upon one person (bush, clinton, bin laden) or one agency (CIA, FBI). Thats like blaming Vietnam on Johnson, or WWII on FDR, theres just a lot more to it than one person.

As for nuclear proliferation I dont fear it at all. M.A.D. operates now just as it did in the cold war. Now if an individual got ahold of a bomb that would be scary, but as for countrys having them i dont feel at risk.


I believe that Iraq was a folly to begin with, but i am glad that bush and his administration have chosen to stay the duration. The U.S. has a long history of overthrowing "bad" gov.'s installing puppet gov.'s and then pulling out. This of course is followed by a coup and all the lives lost there are for naught.

And while i agree with the need for the humanitarian rescue of iraq there are places which we could save millions more lives

Dafur

[reiverix]

Always a touchy subject so I might as well put in my 2 cents worth :) . I guess I'm against the death penalty. Strapping someone down and killing them seems a bit too medieval for the 21st century.

[Tyler718]

Bosnia was the closest thing to a holocaust since WWII. Full scale death camps and full scape RAPE camps in operation. Wag the Dog or not i see no fault in intervening there.

I agree that we should have been in Bosnia for this very reason, but it is well documented that this very thing was happening in Iraq also. We all agree that we went there for a whole other reason other than this. If we would have finished this back in 1991, this would not be an issue now.


Also, I can hardly fault a president because he doesnt "find those responsible." Bush made the same promise about bin Laden post 9/11. but I dont blame bush for not finding Bin Laden because he has little to do with it, hes not climbing through the tunnels. In the end finding someone whos really good at hiding comes down to luck.

Blaming clinton for 9/11 is absolutely rediculous. No one person or one hundred persons can be blamed for that, and even if Bin Laden had been captured prior to 9/11 it would simply make him a martyr. Bin Laden alone was not responsible for 9/11. He had a major part in it but you can't just place all the blame upon one person (bush, clinton, bin laden) or one agency (CIA, FBI). Thats like blaming Vietnam on Johnson, or WWII on FDR, theres just a lot more to it than one person.

Granted you can't put the blame on just one person on 9/11 because there was many factors that could have possibly prevented it or made it a lot harder for them to accomplish.

I don't blame Clinton completely, but his policies and desicions was a major contributor to it. He weakened our intelligence community to the point that they had to work off partial information. Could have had Bin Laden handed over to the US by Syria, but he personally decided not to. I can see your point about Bin Laden becoming a martyr, but it would have crippled them if they lost their biggest backer.

[cgrabe]

Always a touchy subject so I might as well put in my 2 cents worth :) . I guess I'm against the death penalty. Strapping someone down and killing them seems a bit too medieval for the 21st century.
Some things never change though. In order to discourage crime, we need to make sure criminals stand to lose something whether that be time/freedom or their lives, and that something lost needs to be proportional to the crime. For the most heinous of crimes, such as most murders, the deterant needs to be as strong as possible to ensure they rarely happen. A person needs to know that if they take a life from someone unjustly, they will lose theirs. It won't undo the crime, and it won't reform the criminal, but it most certainly will make other would-be murderers think twice. I would honestly like to see the death penalty used much more often.

[chunksofpoooo]

It won't undo the crime, and it won't reform the criminal, but it most certainly will make other would-be murderers think twice.


i highly doubt that.

Murder isnt like robbing a convienence store, or taking some old lady's purse. Very rarely do those who commit murder actually think/care about the personal consequences. Do you realize the amount of anger/hate/mental anguish a person has to have to actually take the life of another human being? I really dont think the death penalty is about "teaching" would be criminals, I think it has more to do with emotion and the want for revenge.

[aquariumfishguy]

I was going to ask, what "public" are you referring to -- but, no don't answer that. :D

I was referring to the 'group' who passionately voted democratic this time around – including many republicans. Oh, and the people who egged the Presidents limo the last time around (when he was inaugurated). ;)