+- Qbasicnews.com (http://qbasicnews.com/newforum)
+-- Forum: General (http://qbasicnews.com/newforum/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: General/Misc (http://qbasicnews.com/newforum/forum-18.html)
+--- Thread: death penalty (/thread-3242.html)
death penalty - Plasma - 02-27-2004
ah, ok. I was reading that sentence differently.
Carry on...
death penalty - SJ Zero - 02-27-2004
Quote:The US does not have a perfect government, nor does any other country. But some, like Suddams dictatorship, were obviously wrong, no matter which way you look at it. Since the US form of government seems to work well, then we try to get others to change so that they can move up from a 3rd world country to a 2st world or even 1st world country.
I refer you to my first statement. Nobody has the right to take the life of another. Neither do you ahve the rights to 10,000 just because you're the "good guys".
death penalty - toonski84 - 02-27-2004
Rhiannon makes a lot of good points, most of which are probably true, but another side to the story is that some of the worst casualties in the war came from the pacific. Whether that report saying we'd lose 60,000 men was created in purpose or not, it was probably right. The Japenese were some of the craziest fighters in history, using everything they could to fight. While yeah, they weren't all the honor-nuts movies sometimes depict them to be, they did their job the best they were able to fiercily. We lost an insane amount of troops invading other pacific islands, and the report certainly fits the situation much better.
Also, WWII was a different time in general. Countries were straight-forwardly self-centered, and it was more of an "us or them" sort of thinking. Civilians were bombed, and people were cool with it. The Germans bombed the English, the English bombed the Germans and the Americans bomb the Japenese. Incidiaries killed so many more innocent people than the Atomic bombs, it's insane. So while there was an inhumane lack of concern for civilians at the time, it wasnt a question of a specific country's morals so much as it was the general attitude. That's part of the reason Rhiannon is right, we wanted to show the world our power and the best way to demonstrate it was in wartime. You can demonstrate a bomb's power in a less poplated area than a big city.
death penalty - Rhiannon - 02-27-2004
The problem with atomic bombs, and nuclear weapons in general, is that they keep killing long after they were dropped because of radiation fallout. Those that arent killed by the fallout or from the intense heat of the explosion (Hiroshima felt the heat twice because of its location) may become mulitated, have malformed babies or die from some radiation-related disease. Convention bombs just kill at the moment and that's it. So even thought the bomb was dropped at a lesser populated region, it keeps killing, and will keep killing until the radiation fallout ceases to exist.
death penalty - Seker359 - 02-27-2004
Quote:When GWB shows clear signs of losing to the Democrats this fall, Osama bin Laden will miraculously be caught and brought to "justice".
I agree completely. I've been saying for a while that everything has been happening along a time table that will conclude with the majority of the troops all coming home a few days prior to the election. Mr Bush will be promoted as a conquering hero, who brought our troops safely home, and made the world a safer place. And a lot of people will buy into it.
death penalty - Seker359 - 02-27-2004
Quote:Had the US (and the Allies) used honey instead of vinegar to coax
To hell with coaxing. As the saying goes..."you mess with the bull, you get the horns". The victors in a war should never have the terms of surrender dictated to them. Crush them until the thought of terms is no longer in their mind. Anything else is a sign of weakness and shows a lack of resolve.
And this relates right back to the Iraq discussion. Had Bush Sr and allies finished this fight the first time there wouldn't be an Iraq to mess with now. But we accepted "terms", Iraq kept their dictator, and now we're back dealing with him again.
death penalty - Rhiannon - 02-27-2004
Is crushing a nation, along with its culture, worth the additional lives it cost the Allies and the Japanese? Why do the people have to pay for what their govt is doing? Why did innocent people had to die, when all that had to be done was force the surrender of the military, and allow them to keep the institution of the throne. They werent asking to keep the actual emperor, they were concerned about the institution which was a part of their culture. But then again, the US doesnt care about culture, it is the ultimate culture excecutioner from its inception.
The US doesnt care about the Iraqi people. They can die, as long as there is oil, everything is alright. Iraqi could have had a democracy, if the US doesnt like something, they go in and crush it, as long as there is some benefit to themselves. Hence why Eastern Europe will continue to be poor and traffic women and children across the borders, since there is nothing there for the US to gain by going in. South American children will keep dying of starvation every day, since they dont have much worth in the eyes of the US. Africa can piss off as long as the US can get their diamonds and gems, Asia is useful as long as people sew clothes and work for pennies a day.
death penalty - Seker359 - 02-27-2004
Quote:Is crushing a nation, along with its culture, worth the additional lives it cost the Allies and the Japanese?
Had we accepted Japan's terms, and if we had not changed their culture and let them rebuild just the way they were, who's to say we wouldn't have been dealing with the incredible brutality of the WW2 era Japanese 10 years after WW2? How many lives would have been lost the next time?
Quote:Why do the people have to pay for what their govt is doing?
Because that's the way the system works. Why do I have to hear all the U.S. bashing just because my President is an idiot. As long as there is a national goverment anywhere the people under that goverment are going to feel the brunt of any policy decisions. There is no way around it.
Quote:as long as there is oil, everything is alright
The "going to Iraq for oil" thing is just a myth. The U.S. will spend more money fighting the war than it will ever benefit from in oil.
Quote:if the US doesnt like something, they go in and crush it, as long as there is some benefit to themselves. Hence why Eastern Europe will continue to be poor and traffic women and children across the borders, since there is nothing there for the US to gain by going in. South American children will keep dying of starvation every day, since they dont have much worth in the eyes of the US. Africa can piss off as long as the US can get their diamonds and gems, Asia is useful as long as people sew clothes and work for pennies a day.
Yeah, I agree. Nations, and most people, don't get involved unless it is in their best interests and I'm fine with that. The question with the examples you mentioned is why aren't the governements in eastern Europe and South America fixing their own problem. But I don't think it's fair to label the U.S. as complete villains. We were in Bosnia and Samalia and a few other spots that I don't see any benefit for us to be there.
But don't get me wrong. We're dealing with a few different issues. I am not a supporter of the current operations in Iraq. I think it was the biggest waste of resources at a time when the U.S. economy was in bad shape to begin with. Our beloved President should have kept his eyes focused on domestic issues instead of pouring money overseas.
death penalty - Rhiannon - 02-27-2004
Quote:Firstly, who are we to determine what cultures should be changed and which shouldnt? Look at the Native Americans now. No lands, no culture, no nothing. Besides, Japan kept their throne, and they rebuilt to be a nation more advanced than the US.Rhiannon Wrote:Is crushing a nation, along with its culture, worth the additional lives it cost the Allies and the Japanese?
Had we accepted a Japan's terms, and if we had not changed their culture and let them rebuild just the way they were, who's to say we wouldn't have been dealing with the incredible brutality of the WW2 era Japanese 10 years after WW2? How many lives would have been lost the next time?
Quote:So why are we in Iraq again? Not the halfbaked excuses GWB is giving, i mean the REAL reason? It's not to free the Iraqis, else why not free the Kuwaitis, Iranians and Syrians too? Hell, why not free all of Africa? It's not to find WMD, cuz there arent any, else they would have been found long ago. So....why are we there?Rhiannon Wrote:as long as there is oil, everything is alright
The "going to Iraq for oil" thing is just a myth. The U.S. will spend more money fighting the war than it will ever benefit from in oil.
Quote:The question with the examples you mentioned is why aren't the governements in eastern Europe and South America fixing their own problem. But I don't think it's fair to label the U.S. as complete villains. We were in Bosnia and Samalia and a few other spots that I don't see any benefit for us to be there.I simply stated those examples since the US is being so helpful, I thought that maybe the trafficking of women and children for prostitution would be important enough to intervene in.
As for Somalia, the US was present because of bombing on the US embassy, and because of the Al-Qaida either training there and/or obtaining their weapons there. Bosnia was because the US had to vindicate their leadership and to take a strong robust position to ensure that the conflict didnt spread and maintain the crediblity of NATO as well as US forces.
See, there's always an ulterior motive. It's govt after all.
Quote:But don't get me wrong. We're dealing with a few different issues. I am not a supporter of the current operations in Iraq. I think it was the biggest waste of resources at a time when the U.S. economy was in bad shape to begin with. Our beloved President should have kept his eyes focused on domestic issues instead of pouring money overseas.
no kidding. dont get me started on that one again..heh...
death penalty - Seker359 - 02-27-2004
Quote:Firstly, who are we to determine what cultures should be changed and which shouldnt?
Japan determined their fate when they drug the U.S. into war in the pacific and lost.
Quote:Look at the Native Americans now. No lands, no culture, no nothing.
As is the same with every culture in "New World". You can thank every Euro expedition that came over. I won't say Euro nations because a great deal of the exploration was funded by the Catholic Church.
Quote:Besides, Japan kept their throne, and they rebuilt to be a nation more advanced than the US.
Actually the U.S. rebuilt Japan and put the goverment and economy in place.
Quote:So why are we in Iraq again?
I wish I knew.
Quote:See, there's always an ulterior motive. It's govt after all.
Agreed. And it's sad to say but that's probably the main reason any major country gets involved in any of these isolated conflicts.