:)

What I meant was save the hacking off of heads for the people who are a part of your religion or your culture.

Otherwise join the 21st century and shoot them or something.

Yeah, that did our credibilty a severe blow, and yes, that is an uncivilized idea.

The US doesn't do firing squads (except perhaps for the military) anymore, but some states still use the electric chair. Europe has no executions at all. If a European commits a crime in the US, should they be immune to the death penalty because it's not part of their culture? Should Catholics be imune to the death penalty because it's against their religion?

You should expect to suffer the same punishments for the crime you commited as anyone in the country you commited it in, regardless of where you hail from or your religious beliefs.

As far as the firing squad goes, two states still authorize it's use. The military does not use it.

Exactly. The real issue with the hostage killings is the fact that hostages were killed, and not the method.
Thanks. Though, with two in my lifetime, it looks like that's on its way out.

Kind of a win-win situation for us when we annex the EU don't you think?

bombing cities with tanks & planes is quite showable. Saddening, too. I suggest hand to hand with a KBAR. That way the duty (not deed) would be done by a real soldier & a true patriot, probably; thus excluding 98% of all cowards. The other 2% would be, of course, in the looney toons category.

Without war, peace would be unacheivable. The Geneva Convention is like any other rule in competition: it only works if both teams observe & abide. Prisoners of war are precisely that...... they are not guests. Remember- a second before they were taken into custody they were trying to kill you. I share the "take no prisoners" view, along with loads of others. Personally it would be the better option to be a casualty than a toy for some twisted heathen, hungry for material to further decieve their inane charges.

War being justified is probably the question of the millinium. I'm glad that call is up to the CIC & Co..... Can you imaging the results if the citizens voted on it? We would most likely be the weakest nation in the world.

THE BURNING QUESTION :
Why can't we all just get along?

POSSIBLE ANSWER :
Because we have the freedom to differ. :rant:

That's crazy. The strength of a nation is defined by how eager it is to start a war?

i don't think it is quite that easy HM. but if the decision to go to war was left to a general election then yes, i think the nation would be much weaker. look at how divided people can become over a "simple" decision, like who they want for president. can you imagine the dirty tricks on both sides of the aisle if the issue at hand was to go to war or not. i don't know if the general public could stomach the idea of "their" vote sending men and women to die - even if war is a necessary course of action.

I think public support is necessary but not sufficient when it comes to a justifiable war.

Justifiable war....hmm.....to whom? By whom? The congress? The great unwashed? The press? The money mongers? The bloggers? The UN? Allies?


God? :confused:

["That's crazy. The strength of a nation is defined by how eager it is to start a war?"]QUOTE

__________________
On the contrary. The weakness of a nation is defined by how afraid it is to uphold their beliefs. In the areas where our troops are currently deployed would be prime examples........

Catholics pretty much invented the death penalty, and cornered the market on torture at the same time ...

(Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition ...)

I suspect the death penalty is pre-civilization, never mind pre-Catholic. But the Catholics did supply considerable imagination and innovation to the field, which is probably one of the major reasons they oppose it now.

Could you expand on that? Which beliefs are being upheld/not upheld where our troops are currently deployed? I think you gave your ellipses too much work.