death penalty

[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.

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).