Saddam to Swing
Here's a thought...
His death is irrelevant and in no way justifies the war in Iraq and it was highly unlikely that his trial was fair, or that it would even be possible for him to have a fair trial in Iraq.
Although I agree with everything you've said Radar, he's still obviously guilty of many evil crimes.
I think that among the people who have been sentenced to the death penalty, at least we know he deserves it.
Now, does that mean I think this is some great victory for the motherland? Not at all, this "war" is more aptly described as an invasion, and his death is irrelevant to the current conflict, as stated above.
I'm against the death penalty on principal, so this is a hard one for me to rationalise. Firstly because I don't think one human has a right to take anothers life. With regard to Sadam, I don't think him being murdered will in any way make up for what he's done. You can't kill the same person hundreds of times anyway can you? Could he be dangerous if left alive to rot in prison? Probably. Is it safer to remove him from the earth? probably.
He is an incredibly corrupt man. I don't think he could be fixed.
I agree with Aliantha, the war is STILL unjustified and everything, but saddam does deserve to be punished.
I'm against the death penalty on principal, so this is a hard one for me to rationalise. Firstly because I don't think one human has a right to take anothers life. With regard to Sadam, I don't think him being murdered will in any way make up for what he's done. You can't kill the same person hundreds of times anyway can you? Could he be dangerous if left alive to rot in prison? Probably. Is it safer to remove him from the earth? probably.
He is an incredibly corrupt man. I don't think he could be fixed.
I agree with everything you've said except I think he's more dangerous dead than if he had been held in prison for the rest of his life. Now he's goning to be a martyr, and martyrs are more dangerous than prisoners.
I don't think he will be a martyr. Although he took care of the Sunnis, it was a tribal thing rather than religious. I don't think the religious leaders, of any persuasion, will want a secular martyr.
That said, Kim and some of the other dictators might use him as an example of US aggression. :2cents:
Saddam to Swing?
how does he get his wife and the other couple into prison? they have multiplayer conjugal visits? You think he'd be happy with his wife after such a long separation. I suspect that Elspode is somehow mixed up in this.
Meh. Around these parts, we put a guy to death
last Wednesday, and we've got another one scheduled for the day after tomorrow.
Some people here are taking strange, convoluted positions, apparently for the sake of seeing how well they can play philosophical Twister.
Whelming the dictator is good. Making a democracy where there was autarchy before is good, however many junior-grade tyrants and oppressor wannabes have to get shot in the process. People of that kind wouldn't work for a successful democratic republic in any case. I cannot believe any Libertarian can't accept this, which is why radar and I always fight. Dictators never fall before a radiation of righteous indignation. They do fall to the bullet -- or the drop.
Mission Accomplished...?
Ha. Very good point, people are taking this as some symbolic victory, I suppose.
I am against the death penalty for many reasons... now one more. This will just martyr him.
In some ways, he is already one to "his people".
Meh. Around these parts, we put a guy to death last Wednesday, and we've got another one scheduled for the day after tomorrow.
Clodfobble, I wish I had never looked at that link, this kinda stuff really intrigues me and when I went one link further to the watch list....I'm seriously hooked and it will occupy my mind for days.
Now I will be researching at least two of those cases to follow them through and get up to date.
The death penalty has always sparked something in me, since early school days.
You used to be able to see a list of all the last meals everyone had requested, but they took it down because it was a rather popular link and they decided it was too morbid.
I have been for the death penalty all my life, for one big and I believe unanswerable reason: it shows our willingness to fight evil all the way to the very end. Good should not be in the business of quitting the contest at some self-imposed point.
That, and there's the complete lack of criminal recidivism once they're dead. It may not be all that prissy nice, but it does control the damage evildoers can do. That there is no appeal beyond the grave, well, that's just the flip side of carrying justice this far. Kvetching about it too much does not become us.
And, hey, if we should kill a few innocents, in the name of Good, it's a great way to teach Evil that we mean business.
Teaching evildoers that we mean business, in terms their defective minds understand, is the entire and I believe overwhelming point.
By accidentally executing innocent people, what "lesson" do we "teach" Evil? Which side are we on, then?
That, and there's the complete lack of criminal recidivism once they're dead. It may not be all that prissy nice, but it does control the damage evildoers can do.
Umm. I may be wrong, but I'd imagine there's a fairly low recidivism rate for people who serve a life sentence.
Also: Man walks free from jail, goes to a cornershop, pulls out a gun and shoots the shopkeeper, he is then convicted of murder and sentenced to death by lethal injection... result = 1 dead, innocent shopkeeper + 1 dead, guilty murderer.
But: Flawed police evidence and a poorly constructed defense by a defence lawyer, leads to the suspect ( a shopkeeper by trade) being wrongfully convicted of his wife's murder and sentenced to death by lethal injection.....result = 1 dead, innocent shopkeeper + 1 dead, innocent shopkeeper's wife.
How is the second situation a victory for justice?
It don't mean a thing
if it ain't got that Swing...
Interesting comments.
The chances of me taking back my country have just recently improved.
I'm not really a bad guy you know. And...I am sorry for all those bad things that I'm supposed to have done. :blush:
Will you let me out now?
no, you can stay in jail and rest there for the rest of your life. :)
:sniff: But I promise on a stack of Korans that I'll be super duper good and not kill anyone or spin a power drill through peoples' eye sockets.
How about now? :)
:sniff: But I promise on a stack of Korans that I'll be super duper good and not kill anyone or spin a power drill through peoples' eye sockets.
How about now? :)
Not till you say you're sorry for putting live, conscious people in the wood chipper
feet first, you naughty boy.
Nope...you can still stay there! Bad bad baaaaaad boy!!!
If you murder a murderer it just makes you one too and nothing else, same goes for sanctioning it.
It cannot be self-defense if they are strapped to a chair or table.
The point is to be better than the guilty.
I have been for the death penalty all my life, for one big and I believe unanswerable reason: it shows our willingness to fight evil all the way to the very end. Good should not be in the business of quitting the contest at some self-imposed point.
I have, for as long as I can clearly recall, been of the mind that one should show her willingness to be better than evil all the way to the very end. Good should not be in the business of doing wrong. We should all be in the business of leading by example; of being just, not of justifying what we do.
Otherwise, what's the point? So what if you can say: "my ideas, my intentions, are better than yours?"
Good should not be in the business of doing wrong.
I agree, and I think the confusion starts when people define "good" and "evil' as
groups of people instead of actions.
Thank you. I find a similar confusion concerning the word "freedom" . . .
By accidentally executing innocent people, what "lesson" do we "teach" Evil? Which side are we on, then?
And by, not accidentally at all, executing the guilty ones, what lesson do we teach?
Understand that we are still on the side of right even when we make mistakes. Errors are to be regretted, but don't ask us to go paralytic. Evil's too tough for us to let up on it.
If there's one thing I cannot in conscience ask for, it's the kind of divine perfection you seem to want. This is a human endeavor.
If you murder a murderer it just makes you one too and nothing else, same goes for sanctioning it.
It cannot be self-defense if they are strapped to a chair or table.
The point is to be better than the guilty.
Rkzen, here your thinking is all wrong. You are misusing the term "murder," and thus setting up a total falsity. The difference between a rightful killing and a wrongful killing has been recognized at least since the Bronze Age. Rkzen, that is an awfully long distance to be behind the curve. Someone who cannot distinguish a rightful killing from a wrongful one is not an enlightened person by any measure, no matter how much he may hope otherwise.
Execution is self defense, extended to the whole of society, at least in the following of just and proper laws. A sign of good government such as ours is that execution is not over-used, in the fashion of the non-democracies. Non-democracies' overuse of death sentences is enough to give the entire thing a bad name, true -- but this should not delegitimize anyone else's efforts at damage control. In the end, that's what an execution is -- it's damage control.
Bad people try to undermine social self-defense. Good people understand it and uphold it.
Bad people try to undermine social self-defense. Good people understand it and uphold it.
Murderers are bad mmmkay.
Would it be "right and just" to prosecute and punish a frenchman in English. No, justice should be in the language the defendant understands.
Executing violent criminals is justice in their language. Appropriate response is the true high road. :behead:
And accidentally executing a few innocents is the language of: ???
The only swinging Saddam has in his future is on a swingset.....shooting a rifle into the air laughing. :)
And accidentally executing a few innocents is the language of: ???
There are no innocents over 2 years old. :cool:
There are no innocents over 2 years old.
Oh well, as long as they're guilty of
something. Good should not be in the business of quitting the contest at some self-imposed point.
"
And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb."
if it's wrong to kill, then it's wrong to kill.
(checks the ten commandments for the small print)
The ten commandments were a covenant with the Jews. I'm not Jewish.:p
The Commandment proscribes wrongful killing, Jay. Even people who aren't Bible scholars know about that.
I'm speechless really. That's why I'm typing instead. I cannot understand the pathetic excuses and justifications some people here have for killing other people.
Murder is wrong full stop! Period! The end! Finito! There's nothing more to add!!!
The Commandment proscribes wrongful killing, Jay. Even people who aren't Bible scholars know about that.
How very reactionary of you, UG. I read it. The word "wrongful" doesn't appear in my list of commandments. It's just not there. You can use it as an excuse to kill, as I suspect you must and you may, but you're just making (more) shit up. As usual.
As to wrongfulness, who's to judge? You're waaaay overdue for a plank-check, brother.
The Commandment proscribes wrongful killing, Jay. Even people who aren't Bible scholars know about that.
Biblical scholars know the wording is actually "murder". "Kill" is a mistranslation.
mmm.... these would be christian biblical scholars?
Murder is wrong full stop!
Why? :question:
Because no one has the right to life or death over another person.
You will want to avoid the thread about the kid that got raped... lot of unrepentant blood-lust in there too. Sounds like the eighteenth century.
Well, here's something I'll share with you, and you can call me a hypocrite if you like when I'm done.
If anyone laid a hand on my kids, I'd kill them myself. Does that mean I've changed my mind or have double standards? Nope. I fully realize that what I'd be doing is wrong, and I'd pay the consequences for my actions willingly, and if there is a God, he'll be the one to judge me when the time comes, otherwise, I'll just have to come back again and learn the lesson I missed this time round.
No one touches my kids and that's about all there is to it.
Well, here's something I'll share with you, and you can call me a hypocrite if you like when I'm done.
If anyone laid a hand on my kids, I'd kill them myself.
Me too. And that makes sense. When it's your own kid, your opinions are based on your emotions, which are naturally strong when dealing with your flesh and blood. When you discuss public policy in general, you are able to let your brain do the work. It's the difference between mob mentality and rule of law.
Because no one has the right to life or death over another person.
But who made that rule? What makes you state that as an absolute and not your opinion? :confused:
I never said it was anything more than my opinion. Obviously it's not a fact because the death penalty exists in some place.
You will want to avoid the thread about the kid that got raped... lot of unrepentant blood-lust in there too. Sounds like the eighteenth century.
I remember about ten or fifteen years ago there was a very disturbing case over here, where two children aged (if i recall correctly) 10 and 12 or thereabouts, lured a two year old who had become seperated from his mum in a shopping centre away, and then killed him.
The boys were caught on cctv talking to the toddler and holding his hand as they led him away from the shopping centre.
One of the things that stayed in my mind, was a terrifying scene as the boys were put into a police van and taken from the court back to the secure unit they were being held in. A mob had formed and attacked the van. Adults hurling themselves, and bricks and bottles at the van, screaming in a frenzy of bloodlust. I kept thinking to myself: I know what they've done is hideous, but these are still two children. two clearly very disturbed young boys. In interviews they were tearful, one of them broke down several times and wanted his mum. But the mob of adults, some of them probably with children the same age. looked as if they would tear these two kids limb from limb if they'd been able to get hold of them. It still makes me shiver when i think about it.
Because no one has the right to life or death over another person.
But who made that rule? What makes you state that as an absolute and not your opinion?
Not everybody shares this opinion/follows this rule. Those who don't, are called "murderers" . . .
James Bulger was the little boys name. It was shocking. I will never forget this case.
I remember about ten or fifteen years ago there was a very disturbing case over here, where two children aged (if i recall correctly) 10 and 12 or thereabouts, lured a two year old who had become seperated from his mum in a shopping centre away, and then killed him.
The boys were caught on cctv talking to the toddler and holding his hand as they led him away from the shopping centre.
One of the things that stayed in my mind, was a terrifying scene as the boys were put into a police van and taken from the court back to the secure unit they were being held in. A mob had formed and attacked the van. Adults hurling themselves, and bricks and bottles at the van, screaming in a frenzy of bloodlust. I kept thinking to myself: I know what they've done is hideous, but these are still two children. two clearly very disturbed young boys. In interviews they were tearful, one of them broke down several times and wanted his mum. But the mob of adults, some of them probably with children the same age. looked as if they would tear these two kids limb from limb if they'd been able to get hold of them. It still makes me shiver when i think about it.
My wife and I have a pact.
If either of us gets murdered, the other does not get a lawyer that will consider the death penalty. If the state insisted, we would not participate.
We have discussed this more than once & we both know we have the strength of our convictions; having both had family members murdered in the past.
I would not for my son either & believe the same for her.
I teach him values that I must live, or all I have said to him, all I have tried to be for him, is a lie.
His legacy would not just be more senseless murder and to have his parents become murderers as well, no.
There is no convenient time to follow one's convictions.
If good turns bad at some point, it has ceased to be good.
That point is where the strength of one's beliefs are determined.
Not everybody shares this opinion/follows this rule. Those who don't, are called "murderers" . . .
By those that do. Conversely those that don't share that opinion/follow that rule, call those that do, something else.
Two opposing positions calling each other names, now what? Majority rules? Mob rules? Reason rules?
Nobody can seem to tell me why their side is right other than claimimg moral high ground or being more rational.
Why is it bad to kill a human being? :dunce:
Two opposing positions calling each other names, now what?
The murderers vs. the non-murderers? Should I be worried about you?
The murderers vs. the non-murderers? Should I be worried about you?
In what? A spelling bee? A bake off? A war?
So your telling me you have decided what side you're on and feel there is no reason to defend your position because it's obviously the right position and anyone who wasn't a murderer could see that? :lol:
No, I'm not telling you that. I would be wrong if I told you that.
There is no convenient time to follow one's convictions.
If good turns bad at some point, it has ceased to be good.
That point is where the strength of one's beliefs are determined.
True.
Your actions are your ethics and morals.
What/who you say you are means nothing.
That's true, but it doesn't make you right. :D
How very reactionary of you, UG. I read it. The word "wrongful" doesn't appear in my list of commandments. It's just not there. You can use it as an excuse to kill, as I suspect you must and you may, but you're just making (more) shit up. As usual.
As to wrongfulness, who's to judge? You're waaaay overdue for a plank-check, brother.
The correct translation, V, is
You shall do no murder. Wrongful killing. It does not proscribe rightful killing. No wonder you argue with me -- you are valiant in your ignorance.
I, on the other hand, choose to know something whereof I speak.
Urbane Guerrilla and BigV sound like Alex from Clockwork Orange, in a verbal altercation with himself. Keep up the good work, guys. Lovin' it.
Why does it have to have anything to do with what's in the bible? Why can't it just have something to do with what you know is right?
Why does it have to have anything to do with what's in the bible? Why can't it just have something to do with what you know is right?
Excellent point Ali. Are we so bereft of ability to decipher what's right and what's wrong.....or even more importantly, what's useful and what's counterproductive, that we must needs take our morality from ancient manuscripts?
I am not a Christian and am staunchly against the death penalty (Yes, even when it has been cases where my family have been the victims. People always assume no one has the strength of their convictions.)
I was not raised Christian, so my morals do not stem from the bible either.
The reason people bring Christianity into it so often, IMO, is the inherent hypocrisy of being a Christian and pro-death penalty... especially a "pro-lifer", pro-death penalty "Christian". Just makes no sense at all, particularly when they tend to be the most vocal and bloodthirsty proponents.
"Thou shalt not murder", or "kill" if you want to go with the mistranslation. Then saying they want to murder someone strapped to a chair or bed... yeah, tell me another one. There is no way that that can be translated into self-defense, there is no compassion or forgiveness involved there... nothing of the teachings of Christ apparent, so people see the organizations for what they are.
Pretty simple. I like it.
I support the death penalty because I believe that if a person commits an act so hienous, so irreconcilable with our values as cold blooded murder or murder of the helpless, then they forfet their right to get any older.
Because no one has the right to life or death over another person.
So you're anti-abortion, then?
Ah, it's the old 'human but not a person' argument :rolleyes:
I support the death penalty because I believe that if a person commits an act so hienous, so irreconcilable with our values as cold blooded murder or murder of the helpless, then they forfet their right to get any older.
So, you only believe that you can do this when there is 100%, irrefutable, proof? Like, video, with DNA, right?
And, if only in those cases, the benefit would be...uhhh...well...nothing tangible . . . actually . . . what is the benefit again?
Wolf, I've voiced my opinion about abortion in another thread quite recently here. The one that argued quite extensively about where life begins.
I am pro abortion.
I'd like to ask those who are pro death penalty what they think about the actual person who commits a sanctioned murder. Don't you think doing that for a living would fuck you over royally after some time?
Depends, I don't think the guy pulling the switch on a multiple murderer/rapist is going to lose sleep.
Damn, I had what I thought was a very eloquent response to Ali and 9th's posts, but then MonkeyBoy stopped working and started debating me on the whole thing. DAMN IT it's all shot to hell!
So you think you'd cope with it well do you 9th? You could kill people for a living?
Aliantha, if it's sanctioned, it is by definition not murder. This is not to call it easy, though. Nowadays, nobody is a career professional executioner.
Living criminals have a recidivism rate. Executed ones don't.
I've said before, and in your hearing, that at the point of a death penalty, it's self-defense, extended society-wide, and it's damage control. Some villains are simply not redeemable, not in this life. Rehabilitation is shown, usually at length, to be ineffective with these, or simply impossible.
I don't care if you want to give it a special name UG. It's still killing someone else. That's murder in my books, and no amount of rationalising by you or anyone else will change that fact.
Aliantha, you're blowing it, and egregiously: the difference between a rightful killing (defense of your life or that of another) and wrongful (in brief, not defense but in aid of wrongful aggression) has been understood since the Bronze Age. I understand it; explain why you cannot. I am not rationalizing, nor contorting reason.
Killing's not the nicest thing around, to be sure -- but getting killed is, as I'm sure you'd agree if put to it, worse by a long chalk.
Pressing the button which brings on the death of someone else is not self defense UG.
I refuse to swat mosquitoes unless they are actively biting me, or flying close enough to me that I have to assume it's ABOUT to bite me. If it is outside, I'm not going to go out there, find it, and swat it so it cant magically come through the window and bite me.
I feel the same about the death penalty.
... Some villains are simply not redeemable, not in this life. Rehabilitation is shown, usually at length, to be ineffective with these, or simply impossible.
Damn... now we have to murder kleptomaniacs. :(
Pressing the button which brings on the death of someone else is not self defense UG.
I've explained before just what it does defend, and I think clearly enough a planarian could get it. Pay attention, Ali -- this is worth paying attention to. That there is something here you patently don't want to know doesn't mean I can't know it -- and esteem it as better than your anti-defense viewpoint.
I do see your point UG, and agreed with it for half of my life... it just does not work, logically or ethically, for me any longer. My actions must follow.
There is a world of difference, practically and ethically (no metaphors here), between the guy rushing you or potentially having a gun in your home, and the one in a cage with a life sentence or strapped to a chair.
What someone may do and what they are doing is the distinction.
(no one make the point that you never really know if someone you are defending yourself against is really trying to kill you, that is a red herring and you know it. Breathing in a cage is NOT actively posing a threat.)
OK, you can pay my share of keeping him in that cage for the next 50 or 60 years. :2cents:
It is more expensive to murder an inmate than to keep them for life. FAR more expensive.
If you would take the cost of the murder over the housing... deal!
It is more expensive to murder an inmate than to keep them for life. FAR more expensive.
If you would take the cost of the murder over the housing... deal!
Absolutely. This is the easiest "pro-death penalty" issue there is to argue. Death row inmates are separated from the rest of the jail community. They do not participate in any work that inmates do that help defray the costs of the prison running. Not to mention the really expensive appeals and such that go on for YEARS.
Plus, it's not a deterrent, never has been, never will be.
Aside from that whole "ethics thing".
Plus, even if it were true, arguing that its okay to execute them because its cheaper is simply putting a price on life, and is morally reprehensible and wrong, because nobody's life or death should be determined by how financially beneficial it is to you.
I've explained before just what it does defend, and I think clearly enough a planarian could get it. Pay attention, Ali -- this is worth paying attention to. That there is something here you patently don't want to know doesn't mean I can't know it -- and esteem it as better than your anti-defense viewpoint.
UG...you're the one with a reading deficiency. I asked what it would do to the person that has to kill other people for a living??? If you can't address that issue without being obnoxious and answering only the part of the issue you like addressing, then don't answer.
I think capital punishment is the ultimate in punishment style law. What's the worst punishment you can inflict on someone, death right? It's not about saying "we have to minimize the damage you cause to society", it's about saying that we must punish criminals for their crime. I do agree with that sentiment to a degree, punishment is the natural reciprocal of wrongdoing. It's just a matter of who we trust with that power.
Absolutely. This is the easiest "pro-death penalty" issue there is to argue. Death row inmates are separated from the rest of the jail community. They do not participate in any work that inmates do that help defray the costs of the prison running. Not to mention the really expensive appeals and such that go on for YEARS.
Plus, it's not a deterrent, never has been, never will be.
It worked when the gallows was next to the court house. It's the anti-death penalty people that make it so damn expensive. :p
We also miss out on the benefits of study. Henry Lee Lucas did not begin to cooperate with his captors, the FBI and his therapists for twelve years. Some serials have waited as long as seventeen.
How many lives have been saved due to what we have learned from these minds... how many have been lost due to the murders of so many others solely for vengeances sake?
One was too many, it has been many hundred that, I am sure.
Just a question here NOT an opinion. Would the death penalty actually function as a deterrent if it was carried out MUCH faster? I agree with you to a point rz, but if the death penalty actually worked at preventing someone from committing a crime (which I don't think it does now) how many lives would be saved. Furthermore, the cost on society and the ability to shift the funds spent keeping these criminals alive were shifted to rehab programs or any of many other viable options would that save even more lives?? I don't know and I don't think our society would ever do it, but it does merit some thought at least - no?
I think capital punishment is the ultimate in punishment style law. What's the worst punishment you can inflict on someone, death right? It's not about saying "we have to minimize the damage you cause to society", it's about saying that we must punish criminals for their crime. I do agree with that sentiment to a degree, punishment is the natural reciprocal of wrongdoing. It's just a matter of who we trust with that power.
I don't know. I think you're almost putting someone out of their misery by ending their life. I think it would be worse to spend the rest of your life in prison, but perhaps that isn't how criminals think. Death, of course, would be so scary...but if your life were that messed up anyway maybe it would seem like a relief.
We also miss out on the benefits of study. Henry Lee Lucas did not begin to cooperate with his captors, the FBI and his therapists for twelve years. Some serials have waited as long as seventeen.
How many lives have been saved due to what we have learned from these minds... how many have been lost due to the murders of so many others solely for vengeances sake?
One was too many, it has been many hundred that, I am sure.
Benefits of study? What did they find out besides they were nuts? How did this studying these creeps benefit the population?
When the next wacko kills 10 people, the shrinks understanding why, doesn't help one bit...... especially to the victims.
[QUOTE-Shawnee123]I don't know. I think you're almost putting someone out of their misery by ending their life. I think it would be worse to spend the rest of your life in prison, but perhaps that isn't how criminals think.[/QUOTE] If they were chained to a dungeon wall, perhaps. But living in relative comfort with access to reading materials and sometimes TV, don't think so. :headshake
When the next wacko kills 10 people, the shrinks understanding why, doesn't help one bit...... especially to the victims.
That depends on just how much the concept of an FBI profiler is a hollywood creation.
True, I hadn't considered that angle. :o
If they were chained to a dungeon wall, perhaps. But living in relative comfort with access to reading materials and sometimes TV, don't think so
Oh come on. Prisons are not pleasant places to be......the average time it takes a new arrival to be raped in an American prison is fifteen minutes.
Oh come on. Prisons are not pleasant places to be......the average time it takes a new arrival to be raped in an American prison is fifteen minutes.
Especially if you're a rapist or child molestor yourself..."regular" criminals hate that! And if you're a cop killer the guards hate that.
Hang on to your soap.
Just a question here NOT an opinion. Would the death penalty actually function as a deterrent if it was carried out MUCH faster? I agree with you to a point rz, but if the death penalty actually worked at preventing someone from committing a crime (which I don't think it does now) how many lives would be saved. Furthermore, the cost on society and the ability to shift the funds spent keeping these criminals alive were shifted to rehab programs or any of many other viable options would that save even more lives?? I don't know and I don't think our society would ever do it, but it does merit some thought at least - no?
In places where it has been used in that way, it did not work and does not now in places that try. This point has been made earlier in this thread or another in which we were discussing this topic.
I don't think it merits thought, because I don't feel it is worth becoming a murderer
just to seek vengeance.
More death and destruction does not solve anything, it
only does more harm to us and continues the cycle.
the average time it takes a new arrival to be raped in an American prison is fifteen minutes.
Please tell me that was hyperbole. Otherwise, I'd really, really like to see a cite for that. Really, I would.
I can't remember now where I read that factet. It was in a newspaper report ( I think the Guardian) about three years ago.
I did manage to find an interesting article on the subject though. It doesn't give the average time for an inmate to be raped but it does highlight the scale of the problem
From ‘Forecasting Sexual Abuse in Prison: The prison Structure of Masculinity as a Backdrop for “deliberate Indifference”’, in The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol 92, no. 1 (2001)
On August 9, 1973, Stephen Donaldson, a Quaker peace activist, was arrested for trespassing after participating in a pray-in at the White House. Upon refusal to post a ten-dollar bond on moral grounds, Donaldson was sent to Washington D.C. jail. In the days that followed, Donaldson experienced a terror that is far too common for tens of thousands of inmates in American correctional institutions. In the course of Donaldsons’ two nights behind bars, he was gang-raped approximately sixty times by numerous inmates. Upon his release Donaldson did what few others have had the strength and courage to do: he spoke out. Donaldson was among the first survivors of jailhouse rape to come forward publicly to describe his abuse………
Experts in the field of prisoner sexual abuse estimate that over 60,000 prisoners are subjected to involuntary sex every day ( Can we put an End to Inmate Rape? U.S.A Today Magazine 1995).
“ It is the rare convict who will never engage in homosexual acts” Lou Torak, ‘Straight talk from Prison: A Convict Reflects on Youth’ in Crime and Society, 40, (1974).
The article goes on to suggest that the vast majority of these acts are not driven by “mutual attraction or affection”, but rather “most sexual acts in prison are the coerced products of dominance, intimidation and terror”.
A
large-scale study of American prisons says only 1 in 5 prisoners have ever had forced sexual contact, and only 7% are actually raped.
Sexual-coercion rates in seven prison facilities for men in midwestern states were assessed... Results showed that 21% of the inmates had experienced at least one episode of pressured or forced sexual contact since incarcerated in their state... At least 7% of the sample had been raped in their current facility.
Not to say that 21% is okay, because it definitely isn't--but it sure as hell doesn't translate into 15 minutes before the "average" prisoner is raped, since the average prisoner (i.e. the majority of them) isn't ever raped.
I've been doing a bit of searching since Dana posted that stat and unfortunately can't find anything which either supports or refutes it.
I have found quite a number of sites which claim stats similar to those you've posted Clod, although most of them have the disclaimer that the statistics are based on 'reported abuses' and are not necessarily representative of the true number of rapes which take place.
I'm getting quite confused here....
as I understand it, the pro-execution peeps want to go that route 'cos killing other peeps is wrong?
A large-scale study of American prisons says only 1 in 5 prisoners have ever had forced sexual contact, and only 7% are actually raped.
Not to say that 21% is okay, because it definitely isn't--but it sure as hell doesn't translate into 15 minutes before the "average" prisoner is raped, since the average prisoner (i.e. the majority of them) isn't ever raped.
Um...what is the difference between "forced sexual contact" and "actually raped?" :right:
Um...what is the difference between "forced sexual contact" and "actually raped?"
Getting your ass or junk grabbed, having your leg dry-humped, having your nipple pinched...
Oh come on. Prisons are not pleasant places to be......the average time it takes a new arrival to be raped in an American prison is fifteen minutes.
Not on death row, no contact with other prisoners. Pleasant is relative, I wouldn't find it pleasant, at all, but it sure beats being in the general prison population. :worried:
as I understand it, the pro-execution peeps want to go that route 'cos killing other peeps is wrong?
Hey, the perp gets to see just how
he likes being put to death. I call that fair. :cool:
You didn't get the irony UG? lol Or you're just trying to be funny again?
He's trying to be ironic for no worthwhile reason. I'm serving him notice that his irony is therefore a failure. In an ironic tone, no less. :p
Anti-death-penalty people just don't come off as either practical or, ultimately, moral.
And if the death penalty is so ineffective as a deterrent, can you explain then why, with the option available to waive appeals at any stage, less than one condemned in a hundred does anything other than exercise all of his appeals? The big reason death sentences are so costly in the United States is because we are as a rule meticulous in how we apply them: we spend the money being careful. Contrast this with the Chinese method, if you like.
So because China - in your eyes - is more brutal about the way they put people to death means that the US - in your eyes - is better or less wrong?
Do you see any double standard in the view you have expressed here UG?
I see someone trying to condemn someone else for doing the same thing but differently. That's a double standard. Where's the morality there?
I think you are missing my point: we're careful about it, whereas Red China, whose execution count is fourteen million and ticking, clearly is not, and spreads the death penalty unduly wide in any event. A bad habit of the un-democracies, you know, and one of the surest signs of such a thing.
And something a real understander of good and evil never does is mistake "damage control" for "evil also." Familiarity with how somebody gets on death row in the first place is enough to tell the perceptive man that there are some lives over which death is actually an improvement.
Geez UG, I would have thought you'd be happy about all those 'commies' killing each other off.
What, instead of viewing it as commies (and commies' lackeys) killing plain folks?
Just a question here NOT an opinion. Would the death penalty actually function as a deterrent if it was carried out MUCH faster? I agree with you to a point rz, but if the death penalty actually worked at preventing someone from committing a crime (which I don't think it does now) how many lives would be saved. Furthermore, the cost on society and the ability to shift the funds spent keeping these criminals alive were shifted to rehab programs or any of many other viable options would that save even more lives?? I don't know and I don't think our society would ever do it, but it does merit some thought at least - no?
It has been mentioned earlier that,
no, in nations, and in times past, where it has been, and is, used "liberally" plenty of people commit plenty of murder.
A violent culture breeds more violence.
It worked when the gallows was next to the court house. It's the anti-death penalty people that make it so damn expensive. :p
Actually it did not, there were plenty of necks for the noose.
Plus we would have to ignore all the innocent people we would murder (on top of all those we do now) by getting rid of the appeals process... despite the whole "cruel and unusual punishment
thing". But, you don't seem to mind that.
Benefits of study? What did they find out besides they were nuts? How did this studying these creeps benefit the population?
When the next wacko kills 10 people, the shrinks understanding why, doesn't help one bit...... especially to the victims.
If they were chained to a dungeon wall, perhaps. But living in relative comfort with access to reading materials and sometimes TV, don't think so. :headshake
There is no such thing as just "nuts", everyone does everthing they do for a reason.
Again... our nation was founded to remove us from tyrants, and keep us from becoming tyrants who practice cruel and unusual punishments.
What, instead of viewing it as commies (and commies' lackeys) killing plain folks?
Well aren't all Chinese communists? Pardon me for asking such a obvious question, but seriously UG, if you live in a communist country then you must be a communist - by the definitions of some cellar dwellars.
Yesman...according to UG, quick death penalties aren't working in communist countries, so it probably wouldn't work in the US, unless of course, you could do it better than the Chinese. ;)
What, UG, the Chinese have no right to self defense?
Well aren't all Chinese communists? Pardon me for asking such a obvious question, but seriously UG, if you live in a communist country then you must be a communist - by the definitions of some cellar dwellars.
And you'd insist that
I'd have to define it that way because...?
Party cadre is a pretty small percentage of the population, no?
Actually it did not, there were plenty of necks for the noose.
But not repeat offenders.
There is no such thing as just "nuts", everyone does everthing they do for a reason.
So what? Who cares why they raped and killed your child?
Again... our nation was founded to remove us from tyrants, and keep us from becoming tyrants who practice cruel and unusual punishments.
Not all tyrants hold political positions, gangsters are tyrants too. :cool:
So what? Who cares why they raped and killed your child?
Hopefully everyone cares if they raped anyone's child. That has nothing to do with the realities of mental health.
Not all tyrants hold political positions, gangsters are tyrants too. :cool:
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
The same goes for your first comment... a life sentance with no parole means no repeat offenses.
Makes plenty of sense to me, rkzen; dictators do it wholesale, gangsters, retail. It's all coercion, which I believe was Bruce's point.
Would it surprise anyone here to know that some people would consider the US to be tyrants anyway? (in response to this quote - Again... our nation was founded to remove us from tyrants, and keep us from becoming tyrants who practice cruel and unusual punishments.)
Sure, and I have made it clear that I am fully in support of removing said power structure and returning to a strictly Constitutional one.
Would it surprise anyone here to know that some people would consider the US to be tyrants anyway?
Remove us from tyrants, not you. ;)
Hopefully everyone cares if they raped anyone's child. That has nothing to do with the realities of mental health.
Exactly, mental health has nothing to do with child molesters. I was responding to;
There is no such thing as just "nuts", everyone does everthing they do for a reason.
I don't give a shit
why they molested a child. Fry 'em.
a life sentance with no parole means no repeat offenses.
It also means there will be no rehabilitation and no reintroduction to society, so what the hell is the point of spending a fortune and considerable law enforcement resources, to keep these scumbags alive?:rolleyes:
Remove us from tyrants, not you.
What do you mean by this Bruce?
"our nation was founded to remove [COLOR="Red"]us[/COLOR] from tyrants";)
That might be so bruce, but my question had more to do with the second part of that quote which was and keep us from becoming tyrants who practice cruel and unusual punishments.
"Keep us from becoming tyrants who practice cruel and unusual punishments", on us, not you.:D
Seriously though, the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights, of the United States of America, were never intended to apply to anyone outside our border. Our relationship with other countries wasn't addressed for years after our revolutionary war was over.
Of course it wasn't an issue until after our civil war, except those uppity Brits needed their ass smacked in 1812 and minor problems with the pesky Mexicans.
But a riff with the Spanish was all that needed attending until WWI. Since WWI our relationship with the World has been in flux. Militarily more reactive than proactive until Vietnam. Covertly, who the hell knows?
By the way, I see the Aussie's have taken delivery of their first C-17 and the Canucks are ordering some. They are a great way to get the UN peacekeeping operations staffed and supplied. I wonder if these purchases are in anticipation of lots of UN missions to come?
We'll fuck 'em up, you clean 'em up. :blush:
"[I]Seriously though, the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights, of the United States of America, were never intended to apply to anyone outside our border. Our relationship with other countries wasn't addressed for years after our revolutionary war was over..........
We'll fuck 'em up, you clean 'em up. :blush:
well, at least you had the decency to blush....
But, rest of the world, remember...... it is writ into the US constituion that US foreign policy is directed to furthering and protecting US interests abroad.
And they mean precisely that.
Yes, as opposed to all those other countries whose foreign policy is directed to reducing and placing at risk their interests.
Yes, as opposed to all those other countries whose foreign policy is directed to reducing and placing at risk their interests.
well, there you have it from the horses mouth, so to speak.
BTW, just how do you yanks spell 'altruism'? Is there a dollar $ign in there somewhere?
Can somebody please find that bigotry thread? I have an addition to it.
I wasn't going to say anything, but Jay's remark is ill received.
it is writ into the US constituion that US foreign policy is directed to furthering and protecting US interests abroad.......
.
So? Am I wrong?
No, you're ignorant, which is somewhat different.
By the way, I see the Aussie's have taken delivery of their first C-17 and the Canucks are ordering some. They are a great way to get the UN peacekeeping operations staffed and supplied. I wonder if these purchases are in anticipation of lots of UN missions to come?
I suspect it was because we needed a new plane bruce.
I wasn't going to say anything, but Jay's remark is ill received.
Empires breed hate. Of course, being part of a collapsed empire, you'd think Jay would be more understanding... could be that's the problem. It sucks when the sun sets.
Empires breed hate. Of course, being part of a collapsed empire, you'd think Jay would be more understanding... could be that's the problem. It sucks when the sun sets.
Someone in AA is extremely aware of the dangers of alcohol...
Someone in AA is extremely aware of the dangers of alcohol...
...assuming he admits he has a problem.
Thats two ouches today, I better lower my profile a bit.
...assuming he admits he has a problem.
WRT England and Empire, I think they pretty much have.
Empire and its loss is a vital part of the English psyche......it basically manifests in a dual way of looking at our nation and people, which allows us to simultaneously assume we are absolutely superior and totally naff/uncool.
I wish we'd chosen to skip this particular experience, we are not real good on historical lessons.
By the way, I see the Aussie's have taken delivery of their first C-17 and the Canucks are ordering some. They are a great way to get the UN peacekeeping operations staffed and supplied. I wonder if these purchases are in anticipation of lots of UN missions to come?
I suspect it was because we needed a new plane Bruce.
They never need a new plane without a mission in mind....what future operations will be and considering the capabilities they require. There are a lot of planes that offer various capabilities for a
lot less money. If they are going for the "top banana", they have something in mind.;)
Well if you want my opinion Bruce, it's probably cause they've realised they can't fly Black Hawks around here without killing people.
I assume you were being facetious, considering the C-17 is a humongous transport for moving many tons of men and materials long distances.:D
It's true! Australian pilots can't fly black hawks.
As to the specs on the C-17, I've no idea what they're capable of or what they're used for. Very much similar to the lack of knowledge I have on what my government is intending to do with it. Maybe I'll ask my cousin who's in the RAAF...actually, he's not in the RAAF anymore. He recently started working for Metalstorm, but I'll bet he's still got a good idea about what's going on...being an officer and all at the time of his departure (2 months ago).
Helicopters are very complicated, difficult critters to master. Big ones like the Blackhawk, even more so. Shipboard landings are the most difficult for any aircraft.
That accident on the Kanimbla was unfortunate, but not unusual. US aircraft carriers lose an average of one aircraft per six month training cruise.:(
The incident on the Kanimbla was only the latest in a long list of accidents.
Considering the relatively small size of our armed forces here, our track record is appalling.
As to the specs on the C-17, I've no idea what they're capable of or what they're used for. Very much similar to the lack of knowledge I have on what my government is intending to do with it.
Think of a C-17 as a jet-propelled Hercules. It carries about the same tonnage as a Herc and a little faster, gets off short runways nicely.
Oh well, I guess they're going to carry troops and things in it then. An aircraft like that would be useful when bringing emergency troops to our somewhat unsettled pacific island neighbours I would think.
Oh well, I guess they're going to carry troops and things in it then. An aircraft like that would be useful when bringing emergency troops to our somewhat unsettled pacific island neighbours I would think.
The Vietnam era C-130 is a propeller plane. Its long life because no other aircraft could perform its tasks. The C-17 is a jet version that can fly so much faster, carry maybe three times the cargo (by weight), and can still deploy to unfinished landing areas. No other aircraft that can deploy large cargos to unfinished landing strips and can do so under combat conditions. The C-17 can do this even with only a three man crew.
C-17 was another example of engineering mismanagement (and it was a long list) in MacDonnell Douglas. Massive delays on a plane that air forces so desperately needed in their primary mission - support. Meanwhile, politicians created the C-130J - latest version of a now pathetic propeller plane that was such a design disaster as to be thrown to National Guard Units and (last I had heard) could not deploy (squadron could not activate).
When it comes to military transport, C-17 would be the most versatile and useful aircraft. There is no other large transport that can deliver so close to combat, carry so much, and deliver so quickly.
Back to original topic: looks like Saddam won't see either Valentine's Day or next Ramadan unless they really want to try him some more; the death sentence has been confirmed by the higher court.
Wonder if anyone will want to publish the verse -- I gather it isn't likely to be esteemed as at all poetic -- he was writing in prison?
I hope he doesn't see the new year - then again maybe a just punishment would be to tie him out in the middle of town and let the locals have at him.
Apparently it's going to happen in the next three to four hours.
I hope he doesn't see the new year - then again maybe a just punishment would be to tie him out in the middle of town and let the locals have at him.
Sure would make us civilized.:rolleyes:
"The Americans want him to be hanged respectfully," al-Nueimi said. If Saddam is humiliated publicly or his corpse ill-treated "that could cause an uprising and the Americans would be blamed," he said.
You cannot be murdered respectfully, especially strangled to death.
So KR, what would you do with him?
Life in prison. No outside contact. Answering for KR... don't know who that is.
News reports say that he may be hanged by morning.
It's been done according to Al Hurra TV; Reuters still waiting for confirmation.
Video footage of Saddam's death
here.
He's swung; another milestone passed, and the world shithead count is down by one. It will be emphasized that Iraqis, Saddam's most numerous victims (a butcher's bill of about a million and a half offed for unpopular political opinions, a hanging offense with dictators everywhere, and quite outside Iraqi military casualties, also extensive), were the ones who took him out. Mutterings about the U.S. pulling the strings are, in the end, of no consequence.
Ba'athist spokesmen have threatened to... continue behaving as badly as before should Saddam be hanged.
The fact that he was hanged with his brother and one other makes it symbolic of the crucifiction of Christ between 2 thieves, since he is a martyr...is there a mathematical equivilent christ=sadam ?
Ah, memories. But a better theme song might be, "For The Love of Money."
It will make not one little bit of difference ever since the "We got him". He should have been shot at his capture. Would have caused a lot less problems to come.
Well, now Ken Lay isn't the most junior celebrity in Hell any more.
He's swung; another milestone passed, and the world shithead count is down by one. It will be emphasized that Iraqis, Saddam's most numerous victims (a butcher's bill of about a million and a half offed for unpopular political opinions, a hanging offense with dictators everywhere, and quite outside Iraqi military casualties, also extensive), were the ones who took him out. Mutterings about the U.S. pulling the strings are, in the end, of no consequence.
Ba'athist spokesmen have threatened to... continue behaving as badly as before should Saddam be hanged.
The death of Saddam does absolutely nothing to legitimize this cluster fuck of an illegitimate, unconstitutional, unwarranted, and idiotic war. Saddam was never a danger to America, but George W. Bush is.
I find the timing quite interesting. If the Iraqi 'state' is so interested in seeing justice done.....then why not postpone his execution to allow the continuation of the already opened trials he still faced?
Because there is a good chance he'd be freed in the coming collapse.
I don't have anything to add.
I just wanted to use this smilie.
:behead:
Some people view the hanging of this man as a legitimization of their efforts in the war they started in his country.
It has been a failure. Nobody has been fooled - except the ones who've been wearing blinders from the start.
Some people view the hanging of this man to legitimize their efforts in the war they started in his country.
And some don't. Speaking strictly for myself, I'm glad to see him dangle from the end of a rope. I'd feel the same if we had never set foot in his stinking country.
Hmmm...I've just noticed my terrible grammar in my above post.
I think I might go back and edit.
Beestie, there's plenty of people who feel the same way you do also.
As I stated at the begining of this thread, I disagree with the death penalty on principal, and in this case, I think it's been a pointless excercise anyway.
I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people Saddam unceremoniously offed agree with you.
Saddam was bad, m'kay? Now that we've done him in and avenged the many thousands who suffered under his iron fist, we need to figure out if we're going to be able to further help stabilize the region, or if our presence is just making it worse.
These people have been killing each other for a long time. They aren't going to stop simply because we've set up a democratic government. Sooner or later, that government is going to have to go to work on its own.
That probably won't happen as long as they have oil, though, huh?
"Now that Saddam has been judiciously hanged by his peers, I for one an confidant that the whole Middle East situation will settle down and come round to our way of thinking"
which is the sort of thing GW would say if only he could string more than two words together.....
I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people Saddam unceremoniously offed agree with you.
I don't think this is a good argument UT. For one thing, it can too easily be turned against you by citing other genocides which the US (and other western nations) have refused to enter into because they've had nothing to gain from it.
Also, killing him once doesn't really count for all the people who were killed under his regimen. To add to that, once he's gone, there'll just be another to take his place.
Killing the bad guys doesn't rid the world of evil.
You could be right though. Maybe the families of the victims are happy he's dead, but I'll bet you a million to one they'd have prefered to do it themselves.
In a sense, they did do it themselves, as long as they accept and support the newly installed government. Could be a unifying factor on one hand, and the cause of new and more intense bloodshed on the other.
I don't care what America's interests are. In this case I speak as a earthling and a human. I'm against the death penalty. But there are some things I'm even more against.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_shredderEls...the comparison between Iraq and Afghanistan has been made before. They're both land masses which were forced to become nations by western influences, and yet have been ruled by tribes for thousands of years. There will never be peace between these tribes until tribal cultures have been destroyed. Good or bad? Any anthropologist will tell you bad, and so will anyone who values cultural diversity. On the other hand, it'd certainly stop a lot of people being killed if these countries were homogenised like the rest of the western world huh?
I saw the video of the moments before the hanging. Saddam seemed calm and appeared to be asking questions of his executioners.
I can think of a lot of politicians who would have been wetting themselves in a similar situation. People in this country are conditioned by the media to believe that all evil bastards are cowards. This is a dangerous mistake when fighting guys like the Waffen SS, Khmer Rouge, and various insurgent groups. In a situation where both sides feel that they have divine guidance it can be downright stupid.
I hope this moment was worth 300 billion dollars and tens of thousands of lives.
Cell phone video of the execution.. it will probably be removed soon so if you have the stomach watch it now..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1353274199652195562I don't care what America's interests are. In this case I speak as a earthling and a human. I'm against the death penalty. But there are some things I'm even more against.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_shredder
I get it, he killed people... so we want to be
just like him!
Makes perfect sense.:rolleyes:
[SIZE="4"]Saddam Execution Part 1 - The Preparation[/SIZE]
Saddam Execution Part 1 - The Preparation
---------------------------------------------------------------
[SIZE="4"]Saddam Execution Part 2 - The Hanging[/SIZE]
[SIZE="3"][COLOR="Red"]Do NOT watch this video if you are offended by this material. This is the REAL hanging video and contains graphic footage![/COLOR][/SIZE]
Saddam Execution Part 2 - The Hanging Welcome to the Cellar, Hypnotic88. :D Another Aussie, huh?
Thanks for the link but Bullitt beat you to it.
OK, the lead in video is much better quality but the execution is the same cell phone video as Bullitt's link
I get it, he killed people... so we want to be just like him!
Makes perfect sense.:rolleyes:
Austin Bay : "The next to last thing Saddam ever expected was a hangman’s noose. The last thing he expected, of course, was a fair trial."
With Saddam’s execution the myth of the Strong Man takes another major hit. We should all be thankful. The Arab Strong Man, the Serb Strong Man, the Albanian Strong Man, the Somalia Strong Man, the Soviet Strong Man, the fill-in-the-blank Strong Man — the thugs in charge claim that obedience and submission lead to ideological or ethnic or nationalist or tribal or fill-in-the-blank victory. It’s a scam, of course, a scam to obtain and maintain their own power. Ultimately, the tyrant’s show is narcissicism empowered by ruthlessness and the secret police. Saddam’s comment on his way to the gallows is indicative: “On the way to the gallows, according to Ali, “Saddam said, ‘Iraq without me is nothing.’” (From Newsweek’s article which interviewed the videographer who filmed Saddam’s execution.)
The Strong Man expects to die in one of two ways — with a nine millimeter ballot (ie, assassination) — or old age. That has certainly been the case in the Middle East. A public, legal trial followed by court-sentenced execution? That isn’t going to happen unless…unless a democracy replaces a tyranny. This is astonishing news — history altering news. For centuries the terrible yin-yang of tyrant and terrorist has trapped the Middle East. In 2003 the US-led coalition began the difficult but worthy effort of breaking that tyrant’s and terrorist’s trap, and offering another choice in the politically dysfunctional Arab Muslim Middle East.
Saddam’s demise serves as object lesson and example. In late 2003 every Middle Eastern autocrat saw the haggard Saddam pulled from the hole; now they’ve seen him hung. The larger message: To avoid Saddams fate means political liberalization. The message extends beyond the Arab Muslim Middle East. Iran’s mullahs see it. At some reptilian level, destructive despots like Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe also understand it.
I was surprised by this execution.... I thought they would go through the other charges first.
So, naturally I wonder why?
Maybe, like Griff said, they're afraid he would be freed, if the shit hits the fan.
But, I wonder if this quick execution, was to appease the Mullahs, on both sides, that were worried about a secular faction being in the power mix for a coalition government?
This pretty much guarantees the government will be dominated by the two Muslim factions and, in my opinion, will drive the Kurds toward independence. But I could be way off base....again. :blush:
I was surprised by this execution.... I thought they would go through the other charges first.
Anything embarassing to his American supporters in the other charges?
history altering... offering another choice... message extends beyond the Middle East... We should all be thankful... the US-led coalition began the difficult but worthy effort of breaking that tyrant’s and terrorist’s trap, and offering another choice...
Mission accomplished??? Or rather point made? At the very least, a start, a very good start.
The death of Saddam does absolutely nothing to legitimize this cluster fuck of an illegitimate, unconstitutional, unwarranted, and idiotic war. Saddam was never a danger to America, but George W. Bush is.
Wrong on all counts, Paul. It's quite constitutional, as the Constitution contains not a word against a President fighting a war without Congressional declaration, as does the hundred-forty-plus historical precedents of the Prez sending the troops in. No one has ever breathed a word of indictment against such action, and it is unlikely ever to start, flexibility in foreign policy being handier than bondage, and the general run of America's enemies aren't exactly libertarians anyway.
For starters, stop calling a campaign within a general war a war of itself. That is intellectually lazy, technically inaccurate (and we all know how you loathe inaccuracy, right?), and a propaganda trope of the anti-American, antipatriot, defeat America now lobby. Not a crew you'd want to associate with if you have any self respect [insert Walt Kelly cowbirds pic here]. Surely you think you have more self respect than I do, Paul! Act, then, like it.
The whelming of an ultra-anti-libertarian creature such as the dictator Saddam is by definition warranted, and moral, and is likely also to be wise. This, Paul, is why I consider my views more libertarian, in the real way, than yours.
He was most particularly a danger to our friends in the region, and in that region, friends are what we want, no? We should not be leaving our friends, however iffy they be, in the lurch. This is what costs us political capital, and I think this not merely profligate, but unconscionable. That we hit Saddam now, instead of waiting for the guy to enlarge into an extra-big threat comparable in percentage of world economy to Hitler's Germany, is simply wisdom. That it's wisdom you can't see isn't a deficiency on my part, but more a demonstration of your inflexible thinking, already pretty well shown in these pages.
At bottom, Paul, W thinks more like you than you'd acknowledge, as did Reagan, also not acknowledged. He does, however, have the responsibility of prosecuting a general war, thrust upon us by bigots who are mad at about two thirds of humanity for not being their brand of Muslim, and at which prosecution I fear our political party would prove miserably incompetent. For the time being.
Griff, was it not Kissinger that said of Saddam's Iraq and Khoumeini's Iran that it was a pity they couldn't both lose?
But a pretty good second best was the weakening of the mullahs' Iran. Only nowadays have they started making mischief up to their onetime potential, nearly three decades later.
He was most particularly a danger to our friends in the region, and in that region, friends are what we want, no?
Now
that is some impressive irony right there.
thrust upon us by bigots who are mad at about two thirds of humanity for not being their brand of Muslim
No, not every Muslim in the Middle Eastern region is obsessed about the spread of Islam. The spread of Islam is less prevelant in the Qur'an than it is in The Bible for Christianity. Stop puting all the blame on someone who you have no understanding of.
No, not every Muslim in the Middle Eastern region is obsessed about the spread of Islam. The spread of Islam is less prevalent in the Qur'an than it is in The Bible for Christianity. Stop put[t]ing all the blame on someone who you have no understanding of.
You seem to have imagined that I've said every Muslim is at least a bigot-in-waiting.
Show I've said that, if you please, or withdraw it and sit down. Think more carefully next time.
I'm putting all the blame on the ones I
do understand sufficiently well, thank you. Fundamentally, what we have is a war against the bigots. Just as few Christians resemble the Fred Phelpses of the world, few Muslims resemble the al-Zarqawis.
The matter is aggravated by a massive, society-wide Muslim inferiority complex with respect to European and American drive, success, and our general worldwide clout. This drives the hysterical response to Danish cartoons, for just one instance of what will doubtless become a whole train of them.
Now that is some impressive irony right there.
No irony. You've given a remarkably incorrect response.
No irony. You've given a remarkably incorrect response.
None at all? I find at least a little, especially when the usual line I hear from many is that "violence/war is what got us into this mess" when, in this cluster of the past thirty some odd years, it was "making friends".
I can't
wait to find out who we'll be
friends with next in the Middle East. What friendly dictator/rebel/revolutionary/resistance do you think we're going to give money/weapons/training to this year?
Better to simply walk away and have no policy; only slightly better, to arm both sides and let them fight each other until they have no fight left. All our money should now go to Canada, to help them retrieve oil from the
tar sands.
snip~
The matter is aggravated by a massive, society-wide Muslim inferiority complex with respect to European and American drive, success, and our general worldwide clout. ~snip
This got me thinking, in the west when a young man wants to make his mark, be "somebody", be known & remembered, he has to make a choice.
He can buy a guitar and practice night and day in Mom's cellar; he can go to school and become a famous Doctor/Lawyer/Indian Chief; he can work at becoming rich and getting his name on a library/stadium/endowment.
The Muslim kid, in the Middle East, has choices too. Become a cleric and try to build more power and influence than the other clerics; become a genocide bomber; start an al-QED clone, of his own.
Being a contender in the Middle East ain't easy.... and that would tend to stifle ambition to be more than a sheep...uh, follower.:cool:
That's an interesting point Bruce......but y'know there are also musicians and doctors in the Middle East. Playwrites, poets, artists and authors too.
I mean after the Moors were driven out of Spain. :p
None at all?
"Some says
yes, and some says
absolutely." -- Walt Kelly
I can't wait to find out who we'll be friends with next in the Middle East. What friendly dictator/rebel/revolutionary/resistance do you think we're going to give money/weapons/training to this year?
And in place of this (pretty much the standard for international diplomacy for the past five centuries or so) you'd do... what?
That's the problem with the people who take this approach to What To Do About It All -- damned seldom do workable alternatives emerge from these people's minds.
And in place of this (pretty much the standard for international diplomacy for the past five centuries or so) you'd do... what?
In Iraq? Absolutely nothing. It wasn't any of our business. Regardless of whichever of the myriad of reasons you happen to subscribe to for our "need" to invade Iraq, application of any of them as "standard international diplomacy" is about as intelligent as the current desire of The United States to fight an ideology as an army. Applying it in one instance is going to have negative repercussions for decades to come. Applying it everywhere would be suicide.
I almost said we're the ones that started this mess decades ago, but the situation we've entangled ourselves in and cannot remove ourselves from until we build a stable country, essentially from the ground up, was absolutely avoidable.
Again, I'd love to know who you think we're going to "make friends with" in the Middle East next and how you think we should do it. I tend to think we could have made
fewer enemies by leaving Iraq alone.
I tend to think we could have made fewer enemies by leaving Iraq alone.
Sure, but how can you make money that way? war is good business. :rolleyes:
The enemies we've made, were, I think, enemies already without any input from us. Are not the troublemakers a crew of bigots? -- for it is the religious bigotry of our opponents I find their most striking feature.
Never forget, too, how often it is in policy that one is presented only with a choice of blunders -- in which case probably the best choice becomes to choose that blunder from which one's policy may best recover. This isn't a science; never has been.
One should not, I think, be afraid of "making enemies" -- some greedy, sociopathic Lider Maximo will always be found kicking up a fuss precisely because he's a greedy sociopath.
The remedy for these people is usually either two bullets transecting the cranium or blowing them from the muzzle of a field gun. Their sort doesn't quit without getting Ceausescu-ed.
All our money should now go to Canada, to help them retrieve oil from the tar sands.
We might want to be careful about sending all our money in that direction. In 2006, the National Energy Board, Canada's regulatory agency, did start to look more closely at U.S. markets. However, prior to mid-2006 the focus was on shipping crude to Asia, with a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific coast due for completion in 2009. Prices in the U.S. have risen; if they rise in Asia again, the crude will go there. Canada will be determined not to commit itself to primarily U.S. sales.
I mean after the Moors were driven out of Spain. :p
MOOPS! They're the MOOPS!
The enemies we've made, were, I think, enemies already without any input from us.
Of course they didn't become enemies with input from us -- most of the money and weapons went through Pakistani ISI agents, first. I'd say the influence on the Iraqi public and political groups we're having right now is pretty damn direct, though.
Never forget, too, how often it is in policy that one is presented only with a choice of blunders -- in which case probably the best choice becomes to choose that blunder from which one's policy may best recover. This isn't a science; never has been.
Oh, oh, please tell me how we can best recover from this. I'd still love to hear more about friend making through these actions, but now I'm really interested to hear how
not getting into this in the first place would have been a "blunder" more difficult to recover from than the shit we've firmly embedded ourselves in, now. What thought process, in your mind, makes this and this invasion and the decades of fallout/political instability to come worth it? Do you even see the same colors everyone else does?
The remedy for these people is usually either two bullets transecting the cranium or blowing them from the muzzle of a field gun.
Well, you certainly leave little doubt that your version of "international policy" boils down to little more than memories of your previous military training. Besides countries that present an imaginary threat, would you care to mention what other worldly problems would be best solved with ammunition? Who else that hasn't attacked us needs to have our boots on their soil?
"Imaginary threat" is an interestingly head-in-the-sand way to describe an Iraq that first attacked Iran, and then some years later attacked Kuwait. Real peaceable, real quiet, and a really good global village citizen, wasn't ol' Saddam? Just what would have sufficiently demonstrated his bad character if it were up to you? It's this sort of absurdity that makes the antiwar crowd such a lot of dopes. You can't figure out when force is actually called for -- demanding, or purporting to demand, an impossible, indeed nonhuman, standard of, uh, proof. It doesn't look like getting raped bent over your own rider mowers would suffice. Talks? Not that much negotion goes on during rapes, IMHO.
My position has a more elegant simplicity to it.
What you fail to recognize, and what by contrast I appreciate fully, is that we took Iraq out happily before Saddam could build himself into either the Emperor of Oil, or some new edition of Nebuchadnezzar -- the none-too-smart still try and follow the imperial paradigm, as they don't understand nor respect the virtues of free trade and a world economy so based. Saddam, whose career most resembled that of a Mafioso who made Godfather, crossed with a Soviet-style purge or two, should be entered among those none-too-brights.
Keep in mind: the whole of the human world's political troubles spring from the un-democracies. Democracies not only are more easily richer, they behave better too. The less a country is a democracy, the worse it behaves, as a rule -- and for a clear example, we may look to Saddam's Iraq and the last, er, election. A dog-and-pony show that everyone went along with that they might survive, par for the course for an un-democracy. I don't think you have personal experience of such a social order, or I'd hardly have to work this hard to persuade you.
The answer to your rhetorical question is EVERYBODY who isn't a democracy needs our boots or someone's all over them -- make them tired of being anything but a democratic republic, or a republican democracy.
The answer to your rhetorical question is EVERYBODY who isn't a democracy needs our boots or someone's all over them -- make them tired of being anything but a democratic republic, or a republican democracy.
Your idea that we can change attitudes and fix everything with bombs and boots in other countries hasn't held water for decades and I'm at a complete loss in understanding how anyone in this day could think sticking our hand into the hornet's nest that is the middle east could result in anything other than a disaster.
Your own government doesn't even agree with you, anymore.
This isn't the cold war or a campaign in Europe. We're not fighting communism with an arms race and we're not liberating the oppressed from Nazi invasion. We're not even fighting a physical army.
Don't understand how this works? Here's a
simple simulation.
Urbane, just out of interest, how long did you spend living amongst, *adopts a scary-movie-voice-over voice* The Undemocrats?
New video? Reported by CNN Somewhere?
I bet saddam's last thought on the gallows was 'dammned yanks..... that's the last time I trust them.....'
The Times' John Burns:
“As he left the detention area, he thanked the guards and medics for the treatment he had received,” said Lt. Col. Keir-Kevin Curry, spokesman for the task force. Mr. Hussein was then driven to a waiting Black Hawk helicopter for a 10-minute flight to the old Istikhbarat prison in northern Baghdad, where a party of Iraqi officials awaited him at the gallows. “During this brief period of transfer, Saddam Hussein appeared more serious,” the task force said.
Wretchard points out:
It was ironical that Hussein, in his last hour, would bid his Americans a sincere goodbye before steeling himself to face the men baying for his blood and who could hardly contain their desire to kill him.
Urbane, just out of interest, how long did you spend living amongst, *adopts a scary-movie-voice-over voice* The Undemocrats?
Nine years, engaged in directly fighting Communist regimes -- particularly directly fighting the big one. Military service, and military living, is emphatically
not a democracy, and there are lessons to be found there even for someone who doesn't care to look.
While I consider there is a place for totalitarian organizations as subsectors of a society -- its military services -- the totalitarian model is no way to run an entire society, a nation. Nations behave well, both inside and out, only if they are democracies, which term I am using rather loosely to include republics, and constitutional monarchies. The ones that aren't like that start wars promiscuously, oppress anyone they take a whim to, and make just about all the trouble in the world not caused by large hurricanes and quakes. Is this not so? Cast your mind back over the last couple of centuries and consider it.
And I sampled just enough of Kenya under Arap Moi to get a clear idea of just what kind of game he was running -- and I could see personally just what that did to people who had to live and work within range of him. What it did wasn't good, and it wasn't the kind of good government we can expect even from the most primitive sort of democracy. So it's not all just the Commies, conspicuous in evil as they were -- totalitarianism of any stripe is the problem. Democracy is the solution. The people who don't want the solution implemented are fascists, fuckups, and all-around nasty pieces of work, often sociopaths, definitely sinners. The people who don't object to implementing the solution, but don't want it done just today are weaklings, cowards, and fools who never clearly understood their own interests.
Those who spout about military force not succeeding in making democracy have been at pains not to understand the actual method: the military force is there to remove the coercive effects of the anti-democracy forces, which may be taken seriously if they are armed and organized. The antis will have the strategy of trying to terrorize the rest of the population into submitting to these as the government once again. Naturally, our countervailing strategy is to exhaust and wipe out the antis -- get them too dead to oppress, or too spiritually exhausted to stay that particular course. While this battling is going on, others-than-military are to establish the democratic institutions that will result in better, even downright good, governance. Some steps have been taken in this direction in Iraq, and the antidemocracy antihumans are still stubbornly duking it out, but this action also gives the pro-humans the opportunity to catch and destroy them.
There will always be those who complain this isn't getting done in Iraq -- but critics always count less than the man in the arena, and this should be ever kept in mind. The "insurgency" stays busy, but it still isn't getting traction outside its initial areas. In the end, it's doomed. It will take actively prosecuting it to end it, and there may yet be a more acute phase of civil war in Iraq -- but the end will be an Iraq that is a democracy, precisely because they remember that was what they didn't have under Saddam & Company.
The ones that aren't like that start wars promiscuously, oppress anyone they take a whim to, and make just about all the trouble in the world not caused by large hurricanes and quakes.
Take a look at America's record on conflict. Promiscuity is not just the preserve of undemocratic countries.
Look which side we've fought on in every single conflict for the past hundred years, DanaC, and for a large portion of the hundred years before that: the side we Americans weigh in on is the side of the greater freedom against the lesser freedom. You have not, I believe, ever understood this.
Wars come from the undemocracies. History shows this. People who read history see this.
Wars come from the undemocracies. History shows this. People who read history see this.
What?
That is because democracies have been around for the past 250 years and that is it. Even then, that statement is false.
Romans were a democracy and the tried to conquer the world.
America is a democracy and start shit with every dictator they don't like.
The most influential democracies in human history have started numerous wars, I think your logic is a bit off.
Those who spout about military force not succeeding in making democracy have been at pains not to understand the actual method
Urbane. Just because your interpretation of history does not match my interpretation of history, please don't make assumptions about what I read. Not everybody who reads history sees what you see.
Incidentally, I went looking at a site that lists every American conflict and found this little gem:
U.S.-Philippine War
1899-1902
Colonial War, War of Imperialism
I'd be interested in your take on this.
Just because your interpretation of history does not match my interpretation of history, please don't make assumptions about what I read. Not everybody who reads history sees what you see.
Thats the truest statement EVER! We all interpret information in a different way and most times to suit our own needs. No matter what side of this, or most any argument you are on, there is information that can be interpreted so that you see ehat you want to see. Whether or not their were valid reasons for getting involved in this war, they were not what we were told and that is wrong. Even if there was a "bigger picture" that we as citizens were not aware of.
U.S.-Philippine War
1899-1902
Colonial War, War of Imperialism
This is actually the biggest reason why many conservatives defend the Iraqi war. The US "put down" the Philippine resistance by force and they think they can do that to the Iraqis.
Urbane. Just because your interpretation of history does not match my interpretation of history, please don't make assumptions about what I read. Not everybody who reads history sees what you see.
Incidentally, I went looking at a site that lists every American conflict and found this little gem:
U.S.-Philippine War
1899-1902
Colonial War, War of Imperialism
I'd be interested in your take on this.
And were we or were we not fighting the Empire of Spain in 1898-99? And what was their manner of governance? Avoid selective views if at all possible, DanaC, or you won't have the entire picture.
You think one halfhearted and latecomer example is going to disprove my basic thesis? Think again. Also take note of when the Philippines became an independent nation, and how it was done.
We gave the place back.
Ours is a singularly unimperialistic habit.
ANY history teacher will tell you that the US was extremely imperialistic way back when. That's the actual name of the unit for that era. US Imperialism.
We're returning to our habit.
What?
That is because democracies have been around for the past 250 years and that is it. Even then, that statement is false.
And during that 250 years, it's been the undemocracies starting the fights.
Romans were a democracy and the[y] tried to conquer the world.
The Empire began as the Roman Republic fell away. Rome's fighting with the Etruscans is all pretty murky, as records of that era were almost totally lost. No telling who was more of a republic, a democracy, or a whatever, not for sure.
America is a democracy and start shit with every dictator they don't like.
Oh those poor, abused dictators! How sad -- that it's necessary to lift their boots from humanity's collective neck!
The most influential democracies in human history have started numerous wars, I think your logic is a bit off.
I can't think of a single example of this in the last hundred years, and really, in the US case, only fights with Indian tribes (
Indian being what
Native Americans call other tribes, a usage that may as well be respected) in the century previous. One may cite the Confederate Constitution during 1861-65, I suppose -- but just how completely democratic was it? Slaveholding's still a big smirch.
I understand that history ALWAYS has its "yes, buts."
In the other pan of the balance, we have the not very democratic Serbians capping the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary in 1914, we have the not very democratic Japan invading China in 1935
et sequelae, and the never to be mistaken for democratic Falangists taking Spain in 1936 and Nazi Germany's, and Italy's, declaration of war of December 11, 1941.
Examples so large and so generally distributed, pierce, ought really to be given their due.
ANY history teacher will tell you that the US was extremely imperialistic way back when. That's the actual name of the unit for that era. US Imperialism.
We're returning to our habit.
We can't return to a habit we never had, Ibram. Look over the times before and after what was really a very brief period, very late in the era of modern empire building, pursued halfheartedly only, and soon abandoned. The Philippines aside, the largest land area involved was the Canal Zone -- and these were both temporary things. No, I think I could give a well supported argument against this extremely-imperialist theory, and make it persuasively too.
You could do the same, with some research with this in mind -- a sort of "see if I can prove or at least argue this" that would be somewhat different, I think, from what you're reading in high school texts these days. You see, there's
never room to fit all the details in unless you're writing a shelf-full like Will and Ariel Durant. And even they could only fit in so much -- they had to prioritize, and they have a lot more detail on European history.
We can't return to a habit we never had, Ibram. Look over the times before and after...
Heh. It is indeed a habit we never had if you look only at the times we didn't do it.
In the other pan of the balance, we have the not very democratic Serbians capping the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary in 1914
So, looking at Serbia at that time, and looking at Austria-Hungary, you have come to the conclusion that the Serbians were undemocratic and the Austro-Hungarians were?
We were Imperialists when it was fashionable, but in doing it because it was fashionable, we never got good at it.
Britain, France Spain, Portugal, Germany even the Scandinavian countries did it better. They all moved in and completely ingrained their character into the local mores and customs.
The US, on the other hand, treated these "possessions" like red headed step children. We didn't really make, or even accept, them as family.
Some American companies and individuals certainly exploited the natives, but in most cases, our interests were primarily Navel support, which made some natives pretty wealthy.
We meddled in their politics to the extent of protecting our interests, by controlling the national leaders and not be asked to leave. We didn't really try to sway the general public toward are system of democracy or teach them much of anything.
The local politics was left to it's own devices, as long as they weren't revolting against the national leaders.
Because of this failure in assimilate their society, when we left, they viewed us not like distant kin but more like former employers. :yelgreedy
Bruce, so what you're saying is we did just enough to get the help we needed, but still left the locals to decide whatever they wanted instead of going in and completely taking over a country and making them do whatever we wanted? Like we got the support we needed without destroying what individuality they had?
So, looking at Serbia at that time, and looking at Austria-Hungary, you have come to the conclusion that the Serbians were undemocratic and the Austro-Hungarians were?
No. No one mistakes Austria-Hungary for a democracy.
The only people who think the US is not imperial are US citizens, and not even all of them think that.
I find that very interesting.
What's so wrong with being imperial? The British did it for some time. Don't you want to be like the British?
We are even more like the British now. We got David Beckham now.
lol...lucky you. Between him and his wife, I'm not sure which is worse. I don't think either of them can read yet.
Between him and his wife, I'm not sure which is worse. I don't think either of them can read yet.
She is waaayyyyy worse - at least he has am actual talent.
The only people who think the US is not imperial are US citizens, and not even all of them think that.
I find that very interesting.
What's so wrong with being imperial? The British did it for some time. Don't you want to be like the British?
The most recent empires, those of the very undemocratic Soviets and the very undemocratic Communist Chinese, were more successful than I'd want any Communist to be at calling the U.S. names and making the world's naifs, fumblers, and fifth columnists (some in newspapers) believe it.
Consider the source, Aliantha -- I do. Then consider their converts, their shills. Perhaps they were too influenced by the despairing note struck by ex-commie Whittaker Chambers? Perhaps they were too taken in by the habit of thinking like a religion in thinking of communism? Garbage in, garbage out, isn't it?
Communism's got nothing to sell to humanity, and it should be humanity's business to reject it, even with Bombs. As in "The."
Sure, if communism is broken and cast upon the fire to be burned away from human political thought forever by peaceful means, I'm happy. If some part of it is torched by radioactive flame, the Rose of Sauron, I'm less happy -- nukes pollute -- but it's still acceptable to one who understands communism's horror. But no matter what,
delenda est...Anyway, what's this about David Beckham's literacy, or not-?
Bruce, so what you're saying is we did just enough to get the help we needed, but still left the locals to decide whatever they wanted instead of going in and completely taking over a country and making them do whatever we wanted? Like we got the support we needed without destroying what individuality they had?
Yeah, we didn't want more territory or people to become part of our family. We just wanted to use their island to support our Navy, and supply materiels/labor that we would willingly pay for. Do what you want but don't interfere with out operations.
The fly in the ointment is Americans, being Americans, got involved with the natives on a personal basis. The lives of many of the natives and our military/support people got very intertwined and codependent. And you know, breaking up is hard to do. :blush:
The only people who think the US is not imperial are US citizens, and not even all of them think that.
I find that very interesting.
I find it interesting that you feel qualified to speak for 6,225,170,264 people, especially when giving an off-the-wall and unsupported opinion. :p
The only people willing to indulge in random US bashing for fun are not from the US.
Yeah, we didn't want more territory or people to become part of our family. We just wanted to use their island to support our Navy, and supply materials/labor that we would willingly pay for. Do what you want but don't interfere with out operations.
The fly in the ointment is Americans, being Americans, got involved with the natives on a personal basis. The lives of many of the natives and our military/support people got very intertwined and codependent. And you know, breaking up is hard to do. :blush:
Is that a bad thing?? This sounds a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
The only people willing to indulge in random US bashing for fun are not from the US.
Some things never change - Everyone else wants to bash the US, but answer me this - Who does EVERYONE call when they want something, need help, have a problem or a natural disaster strikes??? The US and we help every freakin one of them every freakin time!
Some things never change - Everyone else wants to bash the US, but answer me this - Who does EVERYONE call when they want something, need help, have a problem or a natural disaster strikes??? The US and we help every freakin one of them every freakin time!
mmmmm...... like you helped in Bhopal? or after the Exxon Valdiz?
Thats the face of American Imperialism that is so despised around the globe..... the 'anything for a dollar more' ethos that relegates human vaues to the accountants spread-sheet.
Just how am I or the United States of America responsible for Bhopal?
The Exxon Valdez was an accident by an individual working for a private corporation using world standard procedures to do the job. They also paid billions to clean up. But that said how does that reflect on me or the country.
You Brits have done as much as anyone to dirty the oceans, and killed a hell of a lot more Indians than any chemical company. :p
Thats the face of American Imperialism that is so despised around the globe..... the 'anything for a dollar more' ethos that relegates human values to the accountants spread-sheet.
Perhaps we should take all the money and build a freakin wall around our shit and let the rest of the world deal with their own problems. Would that satisfy you?
Everyone else wants to bash the US, but answer me this - Who does EVERYONE call when they want something, need help, have a problem or a natural disaster strikes???
What, are you Ghosbusters now?:p
Oh c'mon Dana you know the truth - we help every freakin body all the time. We are, BY FAR, the most generous nation on this planet - period. And I, for one, think a little appreciation would be nice once in awhile.
Well we were waiting by the big Ghostbusters phone on that whole Bosnia situation, but for some reason it never rang.
If you want us out of NATO just ask. The time is right.
Oh c'mon Dana you know the truth - we help every freakin body all the time. We are, BY FAR, the most generous nation on this planet - period.
Well you have been reading too much propaganda. By percent GNP, the US is way down the list of generous nations. I believe the champions were Scandinavian and France. Something like 80% of American aid only went to 5 countries last I read - Israel, Egypt, Greece, Turkey, and Phillippines. Last time I looked, Israel and Egypt accounted for 50% of US foreign aid. Where is all this generosity?
Then it gets worse. Much of the aid is military - thereby returning to the US as military contracts. Generous? Numbers I have seen repeatedly never say that. But myths are easy to promote - such as Saddams WMDs.
The only people willing to indulge in random US bashing for fun are not from the US.
You have not met the Phelps family I see.
Is that a bad thing?? This sounds a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
Some things never change - Everyone else wants to bash the US, but answer me this - Who does EVERYONE call when they want something, need help, have a problem or a natural disaster strikes??? The US and we help every freakin one of them every freakin time!
True, and when four hurricanes hit my house and the rest of FL I never saw other nations doing squat to help... but they sure like to bitch, all the while they use our technology, send their kids to school here, come here for meds and surgery, ask our military (that is so evil) to bail theirs out at every turn, etc, etc, etc...
If we are so evil, don't use our agricultural, pharmaceutical, medical, engineering, textile, military technology, don't come here for your education and heart surgery, don't use US dollars to save or invest, don't buy US goods, don't use US ships or military goods, don't ask us to protect you when the UN drags it's sweet ass or won't help you or our support in the UN, don't-don't-don't, because if we are the bad guys, you don't want any damn thing to do with us... so put-up or shut-up.
Bunch of spoiled-ass teenagers bitching up a storm until allowance time or they need to use the car time rolls around.
Then their ass is entitled... we need to take care of our own first, no one gets help who does not vote US interests in the UN and no one gets help until the US hungry and homeless gets taken care of first.
We need to pull out of the Middle East and let them have at it, remember, that is what the terrorists
say they want. See how happy they will be when it
really happens.
Who does EVERYONE call when they want something, need help, have a problem or a natural disaster strikes???
So who did respond to Liberia's call (a country created by Americans) when they recently needed from a military massacre? Not the US. So who rescued hundreds of Americans recently in Ivory Coast? Not the US. Why did the entire USS Lincoln task force sit nearby in Hong Kong for five days - never moved - as people were dying after a tsunami and after the world had been providing assistance? Who rescued so many Americans in Tehran when fanatics overran the US embassy? Whose army is so overtaxed due to so many humanitarian missions all over the world? Not the US. Who provided the Russians with necessary rescue equipment when their training submarine was trapped beneath the Pacific (as Americans argued for hours how to transport rescue equipment). Who had to be called to transport the USS Cole back to America for repair? And who paid for the rescue of Kuwait? Who bent over backwards to transport Seventh Corp to Saudi Arabia?
If you think only America does all these things, then your news sources sound too much like those liars over at Fox.
True, and when four hurricanes hit my house and the rest of FL I never saw other nations doing squat to help...
Again too much Fox News hyperbias. When Katrina hit New Orleans, the French, British, Mexican, and numerous Caribbean nations immediately offered assistance. Many had equipment immediately available that was desperately needed in New Orlean. The American government refused to permit any to help. Why did Fox News forget to mention that? Something about the pride of a president is more important than lives in New Orleans?
I don't remember mentioning Katrina. I wrote about the entirety of my state after my home was hit by four of five hurricanes, all of them fours or above and my state hit by five in just a couple of months.
Read much?
Gee tw, I tell you I don't listen to Rush and now your spouting about Fox - guess what? Wrong again, as usual. It seems you only hear what you want - anything negative towards the republicans you take as gospel. Can't you find any middle ground?
I don't remember mentioning Katrina.
You called other nations shitbags because you did not see their help after trivial hurricanes in FL? Well, when America REALLY needed help, then others offered it. Help was rejected. Did you ask how many times such assistance from Bahamas was also rejected? Or did you automatically assume all other nations are scum until proven otherwise - the classic Fox News assumption?
Katrina demonstrates exactly why you did not see foreign assistance during 'normal' hurricanes. Why did you post nonsense – that I did not answer your question? Damning fact called Katrina even demonstrates why foreign assistance is not permitted in FL. Why do you forget those facts? Did you consult responsible news sources – or do you believe hate promoted by Limbaugh and Fox News?
Why would other nations be permitted to offer assistance when the mental midget would not even let them help in New Orleans? This question is never asked by the mental midget supporters who believe Fox News, CBN, or Limbaugh.
Shame on you for not immediately understanding the lessons of Katrina. Your post was answered brutally correct. Katrina demonstrates why you don’t see foreign assistance in FL. Only a disciple of Fox New hate would have promoted so much contempt for the countrymen of Billy and Sundae Girl.
5 trivial category 4 & 5 hurricanes you did not live through that were before Katrina, that you seem obsessed with?
It was never offered in FL.
Now I see why others say what they do about you.
Fox news, as screwed-up as it is, has nothing to do with it.
Gee tw, I tell you I don't listen to Rush and now your spouting about Fox - guess what? Wrong again, as usual.
Well you nicely avoided questions that beg you to defend an indefensible posts. This is, Yesman065, what you do not reply to; what exposes that previous post as naive and hateful:
So who did respond to Liberia's call (a country created by Americans) when they recently needed from a military massacre? Not the US. So who rescued hundreds of Americans recently in Ivory Coast? Not the US. Why did the entire USS Lincoln task force sit nearby in Hong Kong for five days - never moved - as people were dying after a tsunami and after the world had been providing assistance?
Good Americans view foreigners as peers and allies. Extremists somehow believe only Americans do the good - due to Fox News, et al distortions. To those outside of America - yes the hate believe by a minority of Americans and George Jr supporters is that extreme. To them, you are second class people.
But then I should not have to be the ones posting this. Non-Americans should be asking Yesman065 why he has so much contempt for non-Americans.
Well, Yesman065: there were a long list of questions in that post that any informed American could answer? They were asked of you. Where are your answers? If you have so much contempt for non-Americans, then easily you can answer those questions. Show us how the nations of Billy, Sundae Girl, Cyclefrance, etc are so pathetic? Answer those questions in
This Post.
5 trivial category 4 & 5 hurricanes you did not live through that were before Katrina, that you seem obsessed with?
It was never offered in FL.
Now I see why others say what they do about you.
Fox news, as screwed-up as it is, has nothing to do with it.
The only category 5 hurricane to hit FL was Andrew. And the US government declared it was a nothing until that lady county commissioner in Homestead said to the press (five days later), "Send everything you have now. People will be dying in hours."
Other hurricanes were normal violent storms little different from what is ongoing with surprise ice and snow storms this past 30 days. List for me these four category hurricanes that required world wide aid like an Indian Ocean tsunami? Yes, rkzenrage. I have little tolerance for posts devoid of supporting facts and based in emotional perceptions. I don't care who anyone is. You post myths, I will challenge. If those hurricanes were so devastating in a state where hurricanes are normal, then list those four category five hurricanes? What were these storms that should have mobilized Chile and Italy to send assistance?
rkzenrage, you posted an excellent article in
Point of No Return. That is the kind of discussion that earns respect. If foreigners are denying Americans what America also provided to the world, then your reasoning should be as convincing as that article on fisheries. That article summarizes questions I thought we were asking for years - for example how lobsters have long (I thought) selected for harvest. Nothing in that post is about personal bias or turns speculation into fact. It asks damning questions. That is what I have asked. Where are these four category 5 FL hurricanes?
Well you nicely avoided questions that beg you to defend an indefensible posts. This is, Yesman065, what you do not reply to; what exposes that previous post as naive and hateful: Good Americans view foreigners as peers and allies.
But then I should not have to be the ones posting this. Non-Americans should be asking Yesman065 why he has so much contempt for non-Americans.
there were a long list of questions in that post that any informed American could answer? Where are your answers? If you have so much contempt for non-Americans, then easily you can answer those questions. Show us how the nations of Billy, Sundae Girl, Cyclefrance, etc are so pathetic? Answer those questions
I never said I had contempt for Non-Americans! EVER! Don't ever misquote me you shit! I'll repeat what I said in my earlier post - We are, BY FAR, the most generous nation on this planet - period. I never desparaged any other nation EVER! I don't need to defend myself - especially to you! You are the one who is spouting misinformation and outright lies, not I.
I don't need to list the amount of aid America has given to the rest of the world - or how many countries we aid ever year. What end does that serve? Oh, fuck it heres a lil tidbit for you:
"In 2004,
the United States is providing some form of foreign assistance to about 150 countries. Israel and Egypt continue, as they have since the late 1970s, as the largest recipients, although
Iraq, receiving over $20 billion for reconstruction activities since mid-2003. The importance of Latin America counter-narcotics efforts is also evident, with
Bolivia,
Peru, and more recently,
Colombia, among the top U.S. aid recipients. The impact of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and the subsequent use of foreign aid to support the war on terrorism is clearly seen in the country-aid allocations for FY2004.
Afghanistan,
Pakistan,
Turkey,
Jordan, and
Indonesia are key partners in the war on terrorism."
Oh, and just for good measure - (Paraphrase)By nearly all measures, the amount of foreign aid provided by the United States hit an alltime
low in the mid1990s(end) - Who was President then????
Bill Clinton : 1993-2001
Now write a fuckin' retraction.
I never said I had contempt for Non-Americans! EVER! Don't ever misquote me you shit! I'll repeat what I said in my earlier post - We are, BY FAR, the most generous nation on this planet - period.
Well now we all know who is correct. In frustration, you are now posting disparaging words. No, you did not say you have contempt for non-Americans just like a 1950 southern did not say he had contempt of a negro. But the bottom line fact remains obvious in your post. You make this claim of generosity that is not proven by facts and numbers. And then you post it again without doing what a patriotic American does - get and learn those facts.
The five top 'American aid' recipients were before Iraq was 'liberated'. Currently no one really knows how much is going to Iraq since corruption is so widespread in this American government - no bid contracts being only the tip of what may be a massive iceberg.
Meanwhile, aid to S America, Africa, etc has always existed - and was trivial. Since we threw an expense probe at it, does the moon also end up on that aid list?
When the US government convened a world council to coordinate rebuilding of Iraq in 2004(?), the number was $40 billion. The world gasped. That was far more than the US provides as aid to all of Africa (except Egypt). So where is all this generous aid? When do you post numbers to support your claims? Last numbers I saw put Scandinavian countries and France high on the list - well above America. Why do you make the same questioned claim - and still not provide any numbers? Do you automatically know - not need to first learn facts? Only wacko left and right wing extremists do that. I am sure you would not want to be one of those. Clearly you are reassessing your claims by first consulting sources. Good. Now let’s see some numbers for this generosity.
If we are so evil, don't use our agricultural, pharmaceutical, medical, engineering, textile, military technology, don't come here for your education and heart surgery, don't use US dollars to save or invest, don't buy US goods, don't use US ships or military goods, don't ask us to protect you when the UN drags it's sweet ass or won't help you or our support in the UN, don't-don't-don't, because if we are the bad guys, you don't want any damn thing to do with us... so put-up or shut-up.
Okay. First off the 'ghostbusters' jibe was just that, a friendly jibe. Second: what you are suggesting is that if other nations are soo pissed off with America then they shouldn't seek any help, equipment, trade, expertise etc from the States. That suggests that the world at large should accept all help, equipment, trade, expertise etc purely on America's terms. If we are accepting such help then we have no right to complain about America.
The thing is, America, like any global power (currently THE global power) gives a great deal to the world. America contributes a ridiculously high amount to scientific breakthroughs for example. America has the sheer weight and force to make a difference in innumerable conflicts. America has the wealth to make a hugh impact on a great many social and economic problems in the world.
But.....and this is a big but...just as one would expect of a global power, America acts primarily in its own interests. America does not sell its high-tech products and expertise to the world out of charity. America (the body politic, not the people) focuses much of its aid efforts on those nations which have something to offer in return, such as a political/cultural toehold in an area or to ensure the more desirable party wins out in cases of civil unrest. Just like any other global power throughout history, and I don't doubt for the remainder of human civilisation, America acts first and foremost in its own interests.
There's nothing wrong with that. It is the duty of every government to act in the best interests of its own nation. Sometimes the interests of that nation are best served, or believed to be best served, by actions which cause a great deal of good in the world. Conversely, sometimes the interests of that nation are best served, or believed to be best served, by actions which cause a great deal of harm. Sometimes another nation, or body of nations, seeks assistance from America and that assistance is deemed weighted enough along that scale of interests that help would best be
given. Conversely, sometimes another nation, or body of nations, seeks assistance from America and that assistance is deemed weighted enough in the other direction on that scale that help would best be denied.
There are times when America is approached for help by one side in a conflict, for aid against their enemy. There are times when America becomes aware of a conflict that holds sides that fit easily into America's own moral imperatives. In those cases, it is sometimes deemed useful, or right, to intervene. For one side of that conflict, America looks like a saviour....for the other side of that conflict, she looks very different.
America is acting no differently in this, than has any great nation since great nations first existed. A great nation does good and harm, almost in equal measure. It just depends on which face of the prism you choose to look into.
However, the US gets a far greater percentage of negative press based on what it does than other nations.
We do some bad, but we do FAR more good.
What I am saying is that if those nations that denounce us so vigerously... and MANY do, think we are so evil... don't take our tainted fruit.
I don't buy from morally corrupt businesses if I am aware of their practices.
How many won't go see, or spend money on in any way, a Mel Gibson movie now that he is out of the closet as an anti-Semite?
I don't let my money go to Roman Polanski or Woody Allen movies because pedophilia, especially incestuous pedophilia, should never be encouraged... particularly when they got away with it and were accepted back into their profession. So I don't buy from, or patronize any, production from them.
Same deal... if we are evil, don't deal with the devil, you don't get to have it both ways.
If someone states "I don't like this ONE decision, and this is WHY, but the US is still our ally and friend and we support them", for one thing... no sweat.
That is not what is happening.
America gets no more bad press than Britain used to. That is the price of being the most powerful nation on earth. America benefits from the choices it makes, so do those they help. Some countries benefit greatly from some things America does, whilst simultaneously being damaged by other things that America does.
To suggest that peoples who are dismayed by some of the things America does, should disassociate themselves from any and all dealings with America is absurd. Nations are symbiotic.
Benefits?
You must not have read my earlier post... a knife in the back is not a benefit.
I did not say nations that just did not like "some things", and you know it.
This nation is being denigrated constantly, worldwide, and within the UN our voting power is being slowly removed by those who call themselves our allies.
Acts like that should come at a cost.
These are nations we protect, feed, house, keep well, etc, etc...
But, I'm a Libertarian, these are things we should be doing for our own FIRST, BEFORE anyone else.
I agree you should be looking to the welfare and happiness of your own people first.
The reason your nation is being denigrated worldwide, is because your nation is involved worldwide. Involved in both positive and negative ways. Your nation also benefits from such worldwide involvement, or else it would not seek it. Without worldwide involvement your nation would not be as great and powerful as it currently is.
As to the knife in the back. That is global politics. Its a dirty game.
When Britain and Europe were devastated by the second world war, America offered help to rebuild. But that help was offered at a very expensive cost. The help offered to Britain for instance, was at the cost of decoupling our currency from the Gold Standard. Decoupling from the gold standard damaged Britain and had an irretrievable effect on our future wealth and power. We needed America's help, but America exacted a cost that damaged us. There are those who see that as a knife in the back. There are others who see it as a necessary development and consider that the benefits and intent outweighed the damage.
This is global politics. America acts in its interests and sometimes that helps other nations and sometimes it harms other nations. Other nations also act in their own countrys' interests, sometimes that means supporting America and sometimes it means opposing America. Sometimes America does right by its allies, sometimes America treats its allies barely as allies at all. Sometimes America's allies treat fairly with America, sometimes they do not. It is no different to the way it has always been, only the names of the players have changed.
America affects the world positively and negatively, as does every other country. The difference is that America is a leviathon and the effects therefore more dramatic. When America affects the world positively, the lives of millions are improved; when America affects the world negatively, whole regions may be thrown into chaos. This doesn't make America bad; nor does it make America good. America is America. It is neither the bogy man nor the ultimate cavalry. It is simply the most powerful nation on the planet, and as such most other nations will find their fates intertwined with it. Some aspects of that will be cheered, some will be opposed.
Well now we all know who is correct. In frustration, you are now posting disparaging words. No, you did not say you have contempt for non-Americans You make this claim of generosity that is not proven by facts and numbers. And then you post it again without doing what a patriotic American does - get and learn those facts.
The five top 'American aid' recipients were before Iraq was 'liberated'.
So where is all this generous aid? When do you post numbers to support your claims? Clearly you are reassessing your claims by first consulting sources. Good. Now let’s see some numbers for this generosity.
You are a pompous ass and you prove it repeatedly. I gave you numbers - they are right up there in my last post - notice the "quotes". I quoted you factual information and you will now try to wiggle your way out by dismissing the valid and OBVIOUS point that you are WRONG.
Again too much Fox News hyperbias. When Katrina hit New Orleans, the French, British, Mexican, and numerous Caribbean nations immediately offered assistance. Many had equipment immediately available that was desperately needed in New Orlean. The American government refused to permit any to help. Why did Fox News forget to mention that? Something about the pride of a president is more important than lives in New Orleans?
Can you give a link to that or some proof?
Can you give a link to that or some proof?
Wow,
look at alllll that aid refusal.
The United Kingdom dispatched 500,000 ration packs worth EUR 3 million, to the region. However, many of the ration packs did not reach victims due to laws regarding mad cow disease[29]. It also offered medical experts, Urban Search and Rescue equipment, Marine engineers and high-volume pumps, skilled personnel including engineers who could support recovery efforts for installations and systems, technicians, staff trained in disaster management and emergency response activities. It also pledged to release an extra 2.2 million barrels of oil.
Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas received almost 196 Mexican troops, 14 truckloads of water, a mobile surgical unit, 45 military vehicles, 3 tons of purified water, and more than 250 tons of food, bottled water, canned food, disposable diapers and medical supplies. The Mexican Government sent $1 million through the Mexican Red Cross which collected an additional million, as well as 200 tons of food delivered in five airplanes from the Mexican Air Force by another Mexican Government body. The Mexican Navy sent two ships, 385 troopers, eight all-terrain vehicles, seven amphibious vehicles, two tankers, two helicopters, radio communication equipment, medical personnel and 296 tons of food as well.
Oh, wait, here's some refusal!
France - Concrete help was refused by the government initially
...but then...
on September 2, Condoleezza Rice said that the US authorities would assess the situation and contact French authorities accordingly. On September 4, US authorities formally requested French assistance. France offered disaster relief stocks prepositioned in Martinique (600 tents, around 1000 beds, 60 electrogenic groups, 3 pumps, 3 water purification stations, 1000 folding jerricanes and other material). A 35-person team of the Sécurité civile (Civil defence) from Guadeloupe and Martinique were made ready, and a 60-man "catastrophe intervention" aeromobile detachment were prepared to be ferried from mainland in a short time. The Ministry of Defence offered 2 planes already in the zone and 6 more from mainland France, and two ships of the French Navy (probably the BATRAL Francis Garnier or Champlain, and the frigate Ventôse) and a 20-person team of emergency medical specialists. The non-governmental organisation Télécoms sans frontières and the company Véolia environnement offered aid in communications and water management, respectively. On September 7, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs stated that an Airbus Beluga from Toulouse with 12,7 tonnes of supplies flew to Mobile, Alabama, after a brief stop in the UK to load more food.[8] Two Casa airplanes from Martinique landed in Little Rock, Arkansas, ferrying tents, covers and 1000 rations of food for 24 hours.
What a crock of shit.
You called other nations shitbags because you did not see their help after trivial hurricanes in FL? Well, when America REALLY needed help, then others offered it. Help was rejected. Did you ask how many times such assistance from Bahamas was also rejected? Or did you automatically assume all other nations are scum until proven otherwise - the classic Fox News assumption?
Katrina demonstrates exactly why you did not see foreign assistance during 'normal' hurricanes. Why did you post nonsense – that I did not answer your question? Damning fact called Katrina even demonstrates why foreign assistance is not permitted in FL. Why do you forget those facts? Did you consult responsible news sources – or do you believe hate promoted by Limbaugh and Fox News?
Why would other nations be permitted to offer assistance when the mental midget would not even let them help in New Orleans? This question is never asked by the mental midget supporters who believe Fox News, CBN, or Limbaugh.
Shame on you for not immediately understanding the lessons of Katrina. Your post was answered brutally correct. Katrina demonstrates why you don’t see foreign assistance in FL. Only a disciple of Fox New hate would have promoted so much contempt for the countrymen of Billy and Sundae Girl.
You have no idea what you are talking about... I lived those storms, all of them, disabled with an infant, and the aftermath. Water shortages, in heat that many of you have never known, no power, many areas flooded, roads closed for weeks, some for months, no repairs for months... things you cannot imagine. People doing horrible and wonderful things, but NONE of it trivial...
My neighbor died in those storms.
Trivial?
You are a fool, what is worse, an armchair, ignorant fool.
I am
done with you.
Thank you Kitsune, finally some actual facts.
Is it just me, or does tw live a life of absolutely nothing but joyless negativity?
But, by way of returning to topic, Saddam's hanged and gone, and now his chief of secret police and close relative Barzan Ibrahim is just as dead whether he be in one piece or two.
Huzzah! Good riddance. People of decency, rejoice; the people of its opposite are put out of countenance.
I'm watching a Jason movie (some number, prob. fourty-two), he's gettin' his Pepi Le Peu on... this is fun.
Is it just me, or does tw live a life of absolutely nothing but joyless negativity?
I was going to give him a BJ b/c he got a math answer right and he seemed pretty ok with that--but THEN i thought: hey, tw might very well be a chick! so, I never followed-thru with the offer and (s)he, sadly, never came thru with air faire. Then I thought, if tw is a guy, he's a weird guy--like Mel in Conspiracy Theory, etc. and do I really want to offer my oral services to yet another nut case? so. You see the problem(s) with tw.
do I really want to offer my oral services for a nut case?
Regardless of his mental status, wasn't that your original plan? :)
Hey... it's been a while now since he's been murdered. Everything's all better now, right?
I think I just entered the twilight zone
Nah. You just fell down the Cellar stairs. We really should change that bulb.
Brianna, I think you were actually on pretty safe ground, AC- or DC-wise -- women don't sound like tw. However, on aesthetic grounds, you may have balked: men who are handsome, and do handsome, don't sound much like tw either.
You see the problem(s) with tw.
Yeph. She got the facts correct again. Foreigners did offer assistance despite . And those hurricanes that made rkzenrage's hair drier non-fuctional were not category five - just normal FL hurricanes. Those damn ugly foreigners actually are just as generous - many are more generous - than Americans. I don't care what you think of me. But you forgot to mention the important part; that tw accurately identifed misinformation from yesman065. Who conventiently forgot about the Indian Ocean tsunami or the ongoing problems in Darfur and Chad when insisting "we help every freakin body all the time". Yesman065 posted what naive adults do when describing non-Americans as only second class humans. tw- she does not have that same hate of non-Americans as posted by yesman065. Instead she learns facts not based in Rush type specualtions. Instead she respects our friends in other nations.
When he gets older and unlearns extremist biases, then maybe yesman065 will do same.
... just normal FL hurricanes....
Those damn ugly foreigners actually are just as generous - many are more generous - than Americans. I don't care what you think of me... ...forgot about the Indian Ocean tsunami or the ongoing problems in Darfur and Chad... when describing non-Americans as only second class humans
Hmmm, AGAIN I have to correct the
lies, BS and misinformation posted by tw - instead of dealing with the actual discussion at hand. This is growing most tiresome.
1) just normal FL hurricanes - well I guess thats one way to look at it - you obviously never experienced one! Perhaps next season rkzenrage can invite you down for a truly uplifting experience -
2) I didn't forget any of these. I repeatedly asked you to refute my statement.
You, tw, have continually been unable to do so. *as usual* Post actual numbers in American dollars, or some other equal currency, showing the total amount of aid given by the US and the other countries.
If not -then STFU and apologize as you should. Man up when you are wrong.
3)NEVER did I describe anyone as a 2nd class human, well maybe
you are, but you really don't count since you're an emotionless Vulcan.
I have more friends and family from all over the world than you have any idea about. Don't prejudge me and make assumptions about my age nor maturity either. You have no idea who or what I am about.
SERIOUSLY I take personal offense to you making false accusations about me, posting untruths and,
tw, outright lies.
SERIOUSLYAnd those hurricanes that made rkzenrage's hair drier non-fuctional were not category five - just normal FL hurricanes.
Dude, that ain't cool. :thumbsdn:
tw, take a step back mate, that last dig was really unpleasant.
Actually in 2005 there were seven Hurricanes in FL listed as Category 3 or better, 4 of which were Category 5's. Just so we are all dealing with actual FACTS.
http://FL hurricane stormlist 2005Actually in 2005 there were seven Hurricanes in FL listed as Category 3 or better, 4 of which were Category 5's.
Which hurricanes struck FL as category 4? From Yesman065's citation:
Nate passed S at only 85 MPH.
Dennis only did the western Keys at 90 MPH.
Ophelia remains in the Atlantic at 40 MPH.
Rita did the southern keys at 100 MPH
Wilma crossed southern FL at 120 MPH.
Katrina did southern FL at 80 MPH.
Everyone FL hurricane except Wilma was a category one or category two. (I believe I am missing one that was a non-event in Orlando). Somehow this is a disaster?
Wilma was a 175 MPH storm but not when in FL.
Dennis was 150 MPH but only 90 MPH when near to FL.
Rita was a 175 MPH storm but only 100 MPH when at southern FL.
Katrina was a 175 MPH storm but only 80 MPH when at southern FL.
Elsewhere they were (or almost) category five. But not in FL.
Pass Christian MS moved all equipment 10 miles inland to protect it. Katrina storm surge flooded completely through Pass Christian and destroyed equipment ten miles inland. The storm surge was easily 20 feet or more. This storm in MS proves that FL had disasters as rkzenrage claims? That same storm surge crashed over a 17' levee, crossed two miles of marsh, crashed over another 17' levee, washed completely through St Bernard's Parish, crossed the Industrial canal, crossed another levee and entered New Orlean's ninth ward.
Let's see. How many hurricanes washed through Miami Beach, through Miami, through Hialeah and into the Everglades? How many washed completely through Naples and Fort Myers? How many washed completely through Clearwater and St Petersburg? None. None even came close. But rkzenrage could not make coffee? He had to eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches? Therefore he suffered in a disaster?
Is it a full moon? I don't know what rkzenrage's winds were. But every FL storm that year was - at its worst - nothing more than a standard FL hurricane. Furthermore, destructive ones hit the Keys and Everglades National Park - lightly populated. Even Key West did not suffer massive damage. Where is this disaster? It really makes me wonder if UG is right? Are we all pathetic whimps? No electricity and that is a disaster?
When a real hurricane hit America, foreigners repeatedly tried to offer help. But a mental midget president, instead, went to CA for a campaign fund raiser. Aid was rejected. That proves to rkzenrage that only Americans are generous? Get a grip. Typhoons of 150 and 200 MPH struck the Phillippines, China, Taiwan, and even Vietnam. These were category four and five. At least one so strong that a new rating - category six - has been proposed. How well reported was it in America? But again, nobody in FL lost electricity? Therefore these typhoons were not serious?
Why should Chile and Italy supply assistance to rkzenrage? Learn from St Bernards Parish, Pass Christian, mainland China, Phillippines, etc. rkzenrage apparently has no idea what constitutes a disaster. But then numbers even make that obvious.
What you just made obvious is your total and complete lack of compassion, caring or humanity - you are unbelievably callous, cold and bordering on inhumane.
P.S. You still owe me an apology.
Yesman, tw isn't emotionless: win the argument and he will visibly hate you, spending an inordinate amount of time and words trying to secure a win -- which he's never cool and logical enough to see that the word-torrent serves about as well to dig him in deeper as to pull him out. He simulates rationality, but the simulation breaks down frequently, especially under well-founded challenges by persons better informed than he -- those who didn't learn history in Soviet-era Russia.
Believe me, my experience of him shows he has emotions -- but that none of them are happy. Happy men, fullfilled men, do not write like tw either.
How this squares with the brief burst of jokes earlier this month I do not know.
Katrina hit NO at 130, a strong category 3.
How this squares with the brief burst of jokes earlier this month I do not know.
He must have gone of his meds.
Katrina hit NO at 130, a strong category 3.
He was talking about when it hit Flordia.
I was talking about when it hit NO.
It's nice to see that everyone is still focused on poor ol' dead Saddam. :sniff:
Fuck him, he's dead. Next! :p
Uh oh, necrophilia. :p And bobblehead necrophilia at that.
Katrina hit NO at 130, a strong category 3.
Why did Katrina flood and destroy even ten miles inland? That never happened during any of FL's normal hurricanes. Katrina was a serious hurricane. FL hurricanes were trivial. But kzenrage somehow accuses Chile, Italy, et al of being Scrooges? Somehow he knows this dispite facts and numbers.
Once Katrina hit land, its 175 MPH winds created something that only occurs during category five - a massive flood wall not seen since Camille(?).
rkzenrage suffered maybe trivial category two storm damage, at most, and hyped that somehow into major disaster. Maybe he should first ask what the BBC always asks. Why are those electric lines overhead? No electricity? A major calamity.
rkzenrage accuses other nations of being misers because they did not send him assistance. America eliminated welfare to those who do not deserve it. Now rkzenrage demands welfare even from other nations? Above numbers show how FL had nothing but normal FL hurricanes. So rkzenrage accuses other nations of being misers because he did not receive a Mongolian care package?
I mock? How could I not? rkzenrage would have us believe he suffered as much as Sen Trent Lott? Maybe George Jr will rebuild his house too. Ahhh, but first rkzenrage must suffer significant damage. Warm soda does not count.
Dude - you are not right in the head. Thats just wrong. :lame:
rkzenrage suffered maybe trivial category two storm damage, at most, and hyped that somehow into major disaster
His neighbour died and he and his family suffered privations due to the destruction those hurricanes caused. Back off tw, you are in the wrong.
Katrina hit NO at 130, a strong category 3.
No, it didn't. It made landfall Buras-Triumph, Louisiana, as a category 3.
New Orleans saw winds of around 95 mph.
Katrina made landfall Aug. 29 with top sustained wind of about 125 mph, not the 140 mph that was calculated at the time, the hurricane center said in its final report on the hurricane.
New Orleans was on the storm's west side, which normally has weaker wind. Although an accurate reading of the highest wind in the New Orleans area was made difficult by the failure of measuring stations, a NASA facility in eastern New Orleans measured sustained wind of about 95 mph, the report said.
It's all moot, anyways. Katrina still
still produced a category 5+ storm surge -- large hurricanes often produce surges equivalent to that of a smaller storm with a much higher wind speed.
tw is back on his major "bury Florida's power, not our soldiers" protest rant, again. Who can argue with him after all those hurricanes he's had to endure and all the evacuees he's helped? :rolleyes:
WTF?
People die, and you lot argue stats?
You truely do deserve GWB
Jay, this thread got hijacked a long time ago, but yes thats what ends up happening when it becomes painfully obvious to all but a single poster as to whats going on.
Jay, that demonstrates you've got a heart in your chest, but do keep in mind tw is prone to fixations and to delusional speech. And we can't fix him, more's the pity.
"Twisting slowly, slowly in the wind" is the phrase that unites hangings and hurricanes.
People die, and you lot argue stats?
You're new here, aren't you?
You're new here, aren't you?
I like that Kits - The Cellar: You're new here, aren't you?
Wow . . . just reread the last 5 or so pages. What a trip down memory lane . . . Ahhh the good ole days.
Anyway - Seemed relevant to post this here.
[CENTER]Chemical Ali is executed[/CENTER]
With a hood on his head and a noose round his neck, these were the final moments in the life of Chemical Ali, Saddam Hussein's brutal cousin.
The 65-year-old henchman - full name Ali Hassan al-Majeed - was hanged in Iraq yesterday for genocide and crimes against humanity.
He was sentenced for the gas attack that killed 5,000 Kurds in the town of Halabja in 1988, the atrocities that led to his nickname.
On his orders, Iraqi jets had swooped over Halabja and for five hours sprayed it with a lethal cocktail including mustard gas.
He also faced the death penalty for three other cases involving crimes against his fellow countrymen and genocide.
He could have been hanged earlier but it was seen as important that he was convicted of the Halabja attack, one of the worst of Saddam's regime.
LinkNot a bad thing. Where is the video?
Link is bad. Seems to be only partial, try uploading it again and clearing away any supernumerary http header. The site's been having some problems auto-clearing that initial http: that the link window provides.
